Bug#267142: huh?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

> > I didn't say that "debconf" is a non-POSIX shell feature.  Policy 10.4
> > doesn't say that anyway.  It says your script should work with any
> > Posix-compliant shell.  A script that says "debconf" doesn't.
> 
> Apparently I didn't actually understand.  Does it say that explicitly
> or are you inferring that somehow?

It refers to requiring "non-POSIX features".  In this case, it
requires the "doesn't buildin debconf" feature, which is non-POSIX.  

> > Well then if you don't like the list-of-shells approach, but you can't
> > think of anything better, then that leaves list-of-shells as the most
> > popular alternative.  (And I don't have any preferences about which
> > shells are in that list, provided bash is.)
> 
> I think the current wording is better, though far from perfect.
> Part of the point of 10.4 is that the list of shells is irrelevant.

The current wording however implies that test -a is fine.  

But alas, you haven't explained your interpertation.  I'm going to
disregard the rest of your posts unless you will take the time to do
more than one-liners, and perhaps give your understanding of the
section and how to determine when one may rely on something being
not-built-in and when one may not.

Thomas