At 2024-03-25T19:13:39+0200, Oğuz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 7:18 PM Gioele Barabucci <gio...@svario.it> wrote: > > Just for reference, neither dash nor busybox sh preserve the > > caller's trap: > > I don't know why you think they are relevant. dash doesn't even support > `x=$(trap)', which is mandated by POSIX to work;
It would seem to be relevant to its _maintainers_...
dash(1):
DESCRIPTION
dash is the standard command interpreter for the system. The
current version of dash is in the process of being changed to
conform with the POSIX 1003.2 and 1003.2a specifications for the
shell.
Maybe they would accept patches for better conformance.
> and busybox sh is a bare-bones shell for small, embedded systems.
True, but if you want a shell for embedded systems with a real luster to
it, you've gotta grab Toybox, which, whatever its technical merits (or
lack thereof), glistens with 0BSD true freedom. We can't be tying the
hands of America's entreprenurial innovators, like whoever's running
Google these days, with worries about liability for copyright
infrigement--not while they have intellectual property rights that they
vigorously safeguard from the chiseling proles, parasites one and all.
Remember, Big Business is America's most persecuted minority.[1]
Regards,
Branden
[1] https://courses.aynrand.org/works/americas-persecuted-minority-big-business/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
