On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:57 -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was > > created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum > > of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be > > Not exactly a minimum. For example, posh implements a POSIX pwd > builtin. If it were to drop this, one could argue that it still > conforms to policy. However, scripts would be running /bin/pwd from > coreutils instead, which is not POSIX-conformant, and things like the > realpath() function in the tzdata postinst would fail miserably, > because it depends on a POSIX feature of /bin/pwd. > > posh also implements test, echo, and kill, in more standards-oriented > versions than those in coreutils and procps. Why not ls? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part