Re: Tightening up specification of /bin/sh
Hi
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: