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

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>]

>>"Clint" == Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

 >> 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.

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

	Ah. Given that only ksh has full compliance, at least from
 this test suite, policy may not mandate POSIX+XSI+UP, since that
 would then prevent us from shipping Debian with anything but ksh as
 /bin/sh, which certainly does not reflect practice.

	I suggest that policy continue to recommend that scripts use
 POSIX+XSI, and stick to a ``reasonable'' subset thereunder, and deal
 with any defects in various shells as they come up (with a view to
 improving the conformance of the shells in question). 

	Perhaps eventually we shall attain the goal of being able to
 write POSIX+XSI in stone, and demand it of scripts and shells.

	manoj
-- 
 I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where I left it.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


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