Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr

[Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>]

> 	Ah. Before I provide my impramatur of approval over words that
>  shall be writ in stone, are there any shells that have POSIX+XSI
>  extensions+UP-in-interactive-mode? If so, this could be a useful
>  criteria. If there are no such shells, well, we live with what we
>  have, and reassess when POSIX compliance is reached.

I've whipped up a little test suite, to assess POSIX compliance.
It is by no means near complete.

The shells tested:

ii  ash            0.3.8-37       NetBSD /bin/sh
ii  bash           2.05a-11       The GNU Bourne Again SHell
ii  pdksh          5.2.14-6       A public domain version of the Korn
shell
ii  zsh            4.0.4-43       A shell with lots of features.
ii  zsh-beta       4.1.0-dev-4+cv A shell with lots of features (dev
tree)


This is for SUSv3 compliance.  The number represents lines of diff
output from the "proper" output.  These lines are not weighted, nor do
they reflect a number of violations.

ash			33
bash			10
bash (posix mode)	10
ksh			 5
ksh (posix mode)	 5
zsh			30
zsh (sh mode)		20
zsh-beta		28
zsh-beta (sh mode)	18

Now, for SUSv3 + UP + XSI:

ash			42
bash			20
bash (posix mode)	18
ksh			 9
ksh (posix mode)	 9
zsh			36
zsh (sh mode)		26
zsh-beta		34
zsh-beta (sh mode)	24



I should note that the 5 for ksh represents conformance with Debian's
echo policy.

I'll put the tests on http://people.debian.org/~schizo/
in case anyone's interested.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org