Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 01:00:25AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I do not see why we should use which. As I have stated previously, we
> > already require feature sets (set -e in particular) in the new POSIX
> > document which imply the existence of type(1). So type should be
>
> Can we codify this better?
Certainly,
SUSv3
+
XSI (needed for set -e and other features)
The latter specifies type.
I would also support the addition of UP since all the POSIX shells in
Debian support it with the exception of ash which does not currently
support history. Since history support is unlikely to affect scripting,
it would be acceptable for us to specify UP as well as XSI.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: