Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> said:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a POSIX
>> (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
>> understood that the shells in question do not have grave bugs.
> I know what Posix.2 says, but it does not define the term "POSIX
> compatible shell". Can you tell me what that means? I really am
> genuinely stymied. I think some people have an incorrect
> understanding of what POSIX actually says in this regard, but I'm
> not sure.
If you truly are stymied by the phrase "POSIX compatible
shell" in reference to ISO/IEC n9945-2:1993 and addenda, where it
defines the command interpreter, or shell, then truly your mind set
is not attuned to the requirements of this mailing list.
This is not a standards definition body. We need people who
realize that POSIX 2 defines what a standard shell and services does,
and who are not gonna finagle things like people calling something
compatible with that definition (for example, I don't think it is
useful in this context to debate the distinction between conformance
to and compliance with POSIX).
If you truly do not understand the meaning of the requirement
that your maintainer shell scripts must e restricted to the dictates
of standard shell features as defined by POSIX, with the additiosn of
echo -n and test -a/-o and a few things like that, feel free to ask
on -mentors for help. I am sure there will be people who have no
problems interpreting policy for you there.
manoj
--
Hmmm ... A hash-singer and a cross-eyed guy were SLEEPING on a
deserted island, when ...
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: