Bug#267142: huh?
Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:
> > So there is certainly a POSIX rule that a builtin test must implement
>
> Is that rule germane to 10.4?
Yes, because 10.4 says that you can assume that /bin/sh conforms to
Posix, so you can assume that any builtin which is Posix-specified, is
compatible with the spec.
> > Yes. If I depend on a package, I am allowed to assume that the Debian
> > version of that package's files is installed, and rely on it having
> > exactly the behavior of the Debian version. But I must either depend
> > on the package; or it can be an essential package (which doesn't
> > require a dependency). In the common case here, "coreutils" is an
> > essential package, and I am allowed to assume that /usr/bin/test is
> > exactly that program.
>
> But you are not calling /usr/bin/test, and the likelihood that you
> will get /usr/bin/test without using a full path is somewhere between
> infinitesimal and nil.
Actually, that's not true. Perhaps you haven't read much on what
guarantees Policy makes about maintainer scripts.
In any case, if you really mean what you say here, then you must be
supporting OPTION 4. If *that's* what you mean, why didn't you say
so?
Regardless, can you please decide what you would prefer first, and
only then post? This incessant dancing around, refusing to actually
state *your* opinion about the best course of action, only makes the
process more frustrating. It may be entertaining for you, but it's a
PITA for me.
Can you please try and just say what you think the world should look
like? I feel as if you got in this only because someone filed a
foolish bug against posh. If that's true, then you can please stop
kvetching about the present case, unless you truly have something
concrete to contribute instead of repeatedly rehashing things?
Most of what you have brought up has already been considered in my
original bug report.
Thomas
Reply to: