Re: Bug#33156: debian-policy: Cannot find referenced file in given URL
On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 06:06:42PM +0100, Brederlow wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
>
> > I think this section should be removed from policy. This document
> > contains some (very arguable) reasons why new scripts should not be written
> > in csh, but absolutely no reasons why upstream csh scripts should not be used.
> > Also, the document points out a lack of features in csh. If you don't need
> > those features, it's just as good as bash.
>
> If you don't need those features and you don't need any csh specific
> stuff, the script will run on bash as well, so why not use /bin/sh? Its
> loaded into memory already.
>
> Also isn't it policy to write scripts for a posix shell when possible?
> Special bash features should be avoided.
Maintainer scripts should be written in posix or bash; no argument there.
However, upstream should be free to use whatever scripting language it
wants.
> The policy is there so that scripts can be understood. Somebody only
Then why are perl scripts allowed? :-) You can easily write some
truely obfuscated perl scripts, but there's nothing in policy against them.
The csh syntax is quite obvious if you need to make some minor bug fixes
to an existing script.
> PS: One just doesn't write scripts in csh. :)
I don't use csh for scripting myself; I use /bin/sh (although I do use
tcsh for my interactive shell). But policy should allow it (except
perhaps for maintainer scripts).
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Reply to: