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

Re: Tightening up specification of /bin/sh


Zack Weinberg schrieb:
> I apologize for the long delay in responding, I was sick.

Bless you.

> Perhaps we could rephrase the proposal in terms of uniformity between
> shells included in Debian and considered to be suitable alternatives
> for /bin/sh (ignoring the fact that there is no /bin/sh alternative).
> This would be a weaker constraint but should do acceptably well.
> Something like
> 	The POSIX standard for shells leaves important areas
> 	unspecified.  In the interest of minimizing the number of
> 	scripts which are dependent on one particular implementation
> 	of the shell, all POSIX compatible shells included in Debian
> 	should behave identically for all features which are mentioned
> 	in the POSIX standard.  
> 	<footnote> 
> 	This is not intended to exclude extensions to the standard,
> 	only to constrain those features which POSIX mentions but does
> 	not fully specify.
> 	</footnote>
> 	{ possibly examples here }
> Do you think that would be better?

Just reading the indented text it looks as if you wanted to ban
all non-compliant shells from Debian. Maybe this whole thing
could be formulated positively, such that shells that comply
with this way are marked as being useable as /bin/sh and might
provide means to divert it.

Further, "identical behaviour" seems a bit strict and hard to
prove to me, OTOH I don't know POSIX well, thus I have no idea
what this would apply to.

just my 2Rp, 2ri
Die Freiheit zu haben ohne fremde Hilfe trotzdem alles falsch machen
zu können: Linux.

Reply to: