On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 03:43:11PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > > Highly debatable. Policy only mentions POSIX with respect to standard > > shell features, and test(1) is not a standard shell feature, it's a > > standard utility program. > I'm not sure what you mean by "standard" here; test is more often than > not implemented as a builtin. The same thing that people mean when they claim maintainer scripts are using features not required by the POSIX standard. > Anyone who thinks a crusade against extraneous builtins is a good idea > should take a look at the list of builtins actually required by POSIX. Rather, the "crusade" seems to be against use of features that are common to all real shells that are actively used. This discussion is about a) whether policy as written actually requires setting the greatest-common-factor line for shell functionality somewhere other than where many developers actually thought it was, and b) where the line actually *should* be set. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature