[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)"):
> But that's *also* not the point. The point is that we have a policy
> which states particular things, and that you should follow that policy.
> If you think policy is wrong, you're welcome to change it; doing so
> really isn't hard, especially if your change is technically sound. In
> the absense of any such change, however, you should either change your
> shell script to be policy-compliant, or change your shebang to pick an
> explicit shell rather than /bin/sh.

Actually, the problem is indeed in policy.  In its resolution of
#539158 the TC decided unanimously (but unfortunately slightly
implicitly) that printf ought to be provided by our /bin/sh.

Unfortunately the policy has not been properly clarified.  This leaves
us in the somewhat unsatisfactory situation where our real
compatibility requirement is de facto rather than de jure.

As the maintainer of a minority shell, Thorsten has the most interest
in regularising this.  Perhaps Thorsten would like to propose a
suitable policy wording (with a view to changing posh to match).

Obviously that wording ought to be consistent with the TC's decision
in #539158 - ie, it should specify printf as a builtin.


Reply to: