Peter Seebach wrote: > But, most importantly, it's in POSIX. I can see no reason for /bin/sh to not > be at least reasonably close to a POSIX shell, when the code is already > written.
I was looking at the POSIX specs, and while getopts is listed as a required utility[1], and it is listed in the table "regular built-in utilities"[2] it is not in the table "special built-in utilities."[3] So, it looks like the command must be present but it does not necessarily have to be built into the shell. The earliest discussion of this seems to be[4] a thread from October 2000, where Chris F states the following: > The "ash maintainer" is either me or Corinna. FWIW, I don't plan on > changing this. I want ash to be small and fast when running configure > scripts. I've stripped ash down to support only the minimal set of > functionality found in older versions of UNIX. I use the /bin/sh on > Digital UNIX 3.2 as a reference. > > If you want more functionality, use bash. > > FYI, getopts can also be a separate program although we don't supply it > with cygwin, currently. So, it looks like cgf is the one you need to convince. Perhaps show the running time differences of a long configure script with and without a getopts-enabled ash. I have no idea what the differences may be, if any. Brian [1] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/getopts.html#tag_04_62 [2] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/xcu_chap01.html#tagtcjh_5 [3] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_14 [4] http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2000-10/threads.html#00337 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
