Bug#267142: debian-policy: Sections 10.4 and 6.1 are inconsistent (Posix doesn't say what you think it says)
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:44:16AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> One reason to require posh compatibility is that this increases the
> chances that other shells can be added to the list in the future.
I'm not sure that's true (although I'm not sure it's not). But the
immediate problem (the one we're trying to solve right now) has to do
with shell builtins that override our more featureful non-builtin
utilities. I don't think posh has any issues in this area, so adding
posh to the required list is not necessary to fix the current bug.
So, the question is, do we want to add it anyway?
I'm very reluctant. Posh is new, and not very extensively tested. If
we're going to require compatibility, I want it to be compatibility
with known, widely used, field-tested shells.
Furthermore, posh is supposed to exist as a test of policy. If it
becomes part of policy, then we have a sort of chicken-and-egg
problem. The notion makes my head hurt slightly.
As a compromise, I suggest that we say that scripts *must* be
compatible with our real, working shells, bash and dash, and that
further, they *should* be compatible with any reasonable
POSIX-compliant shell. Then, if something breaks under posh, it'll
still be a bug. But it won't be release-critical unless it breaks
under a shell that people actually use.
And later, if posh catches on, then we can add it. But for now, I'd
rather stick with the practical and trustworthy - the software our
users actually use.
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: