Bug#267142: huh?

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

Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:

> > A shell with a crazy debconf builtin is still a POSIX compatible
> > shell, and so the "should" advice in Policy 10.4 kicks in, and one
> > should not use debconf (or use it through a complete path name).
> 
> What?

A shell with a crazy debconf builtin [that is, a shell with a builtin
called "debconf" that does something very different from the Debian
"debconf"] is still a POSIX compatible shell [that is, provided it
otherwise is, such a builtin is allowed for a POSIX compatible shell],
and so the "should" advice in Policy 10.4 kicks in [that is, the
requirement that one's scripts should work on any POSIX compatible
shell], and one should not use debconf [expecting to get the Debian
behavior, because a POSIX compatible shell can have a debconf builtin
that does something wildly different] (or use it through a complete
path name) [because of course this will avoid any builtin, though is
itself contrary to policy 6.1].

I'd be happy to explain in more detail, but you'll have to say which
part you didn't understand. 

I find your oneliner replies very annoying; if you would spend the
time to give your thoughts more completely it would vastly speed up
the discussion and make it far less difficult for me.

> > So the problem is that Policy 10.4 has a technical bug.  My preferred
> > fix is to list which shells' features one can use, by listing the
> > shells.  I am happy to see posh on that list, or not; it doesn't
> > matter much to me one way or the other.
> 
> This was suggested years ago, and I thought it was a bad idea then
> too.

Do you have an alternative way to specify what features a maintainer
script may rely on?  I proposed several in my original report that
would all do the job.

Thomas