On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:25:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 05:34:07PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > So, you would rather that things stay the same rather than improve (and > > potentially break)? There is an operating system targeted at just that > > actually, it's replacing bash with ash/dash as the default sh which has > the potential to break things. > > bash has been /bin/sh on debian systems for over a decade. there's a lot > of local scripts that have been written assuming that fact (and even > several debian package scripts which make that assumption in violation > of policy - yes, that's a bug. the correct response to that is to file > bug reports and have them fixed, not just break them - and everyone's > local scripts - arbitrarily). > > changing something that will break things for the majority in order > to cater for a miniscule minority (embedded systems developers) is a > ludicrous proposition. it makes no sense at all. > So, you would be in favor not improving the compilers or fixing compiler bugs? I mean there are C and C++ "features" that are in violation of the spec or which are clearly buggy behavior. But of course, we shoud be more concerned with not ever disturbing any locally developed software than we should about making things more policy compliant. Right? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature