On Sat, 2007-09-29 10:27:41 -0400, Chris Bannister <mockingbird@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 08:05:33PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:44:40AM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:39:29PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > >
> > > > in short, don't do unneccessary harm and don't violate the principle
> > > > of least surprise.
> > >
> > > This is *exactly* one of the things that they are trying to fix.
> >
> > no, it's not. if it was, then they wouldn't be making the proposal.
>
> Isn't this all about posix compliance.
>
> (1) /bin/sh is supposed to be posix compliant.
AFAIR, /bin/sh is a bourne shell, not neccessarily a POSIX compatible
shell. If you formally want a POSIX shell, prepare a POSIX compatible
environment and use the first `sh' from $PATH.
> (4) If /bin/sh is linked to /bin/dash or /bin/ash then posix compliance
> is achieved because /bin/dash and /bin/ash are posix compliant shells.
This is IMHO the result of (most of) the implementations, but not
covered by the POSIX standards.
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty
the second : decreases." (Thomas Jefferson)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature