On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:05:09 +0200, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 10:48:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't think using any non-POSIX feature should be a policy
>> violation, probably. There are some that are in such widespread
>> use and are supported by all shells that weren't written
>> specifically as test suites that I think it's worthwhile making an
>> exception for them. But using general bash features in /bin/sh
>> scripts really do break real systems.
> How about instead of speaking about POSIX, policy should just list
> the shells that are officially supported as /bin/sh? There is no
> need listing every shell, just a representative subset: bash
> (obviously), dash (it's popular) and an other "minimalistic" shell
> (posh?) to prevent allowing everything & the kitchen sink if dash
> starts to rapidly acquire new features.
> If a maintainer script does not work with a shell on the list ->
> serious bug, if it does not work with some other shell -> wishlist
> bug.
Policy is a slowly changing document, so it was deemed too
much of a burden for the list of shells to be maintained in policy;
but I have no fundamental objections to this approach.
manoj
--
Refreshed by a brief blackout, I got to my feet and went next
door. Martin Amis, _Money_
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
