On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:57 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Release goals and etch-ignores > ============================== > After a mailing list discussion about release-criticality and policy, we've > decided to include "fixing bashisms" as a release goal. This means that if > packages have bugs that render them unusable with other implementations of > /bin/sh, such as dash, we encourage maintainers to consider NMUing those > packages under the same rules that govern release-critical bugfixes.[5] > This does not mean that such bugfixes *are* release-critical (they're > severity: important unless there is another reason they should be release > critical), so such fixes will be included in Etch on a best-effort basis. I'm hoping for clarity here, and I can't quite tell what's the policy here. It sounds like you are saying that the issue is not whether something is "Posix-compatible" or a "Posix-feature", but rather the practical question "does it break with an different shell?" This is, it seems to me, a very good criterion. However, I still wonder: which shells? Your example is dash. But I find meeting a moving target hard; can we have a list of exactly which shells must work? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part