On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 09:06:05AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:11:43AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > IMPROVE QA > > > All discussion about "policy has problems" is really due to lack of > > quality assurance work that prevents non-sh-compliant scripts to > > enter into the packaging in the first place. If people are sloppy or > > don't know how to comply with standard sh scripts, > > You know, it is rather hard to comply to a standard you do not have a > copy of; POSIX costs money, and no trivial amount of it. We > kinda-learn what is in POSIX and what not by "common lore" that one > picks up as one goes or by reading other documents such as the SUS or > the bash/dash/... manual that more or less partially indicate what > feature they document is POSIX and which one is not. > > Up to now, I've been surviving with SUS as a reference and the bash > manual for quick reference for things I know it says (e.g. is the > POSIX equality operator = or == ?). Not that I write that many > maintainer scripts, but still. In general, though, for all but the > most basic scripts, I have abandoned the idea of making /bin/sh > scripts and do /bin/bash scripts. I don't have to count anymore how > many times I have to escape nested backquotes, I had until very > recently with the GFDL debacle a manual I could easily refer to, ...
The SuSv3 is to be considered as POSIX these days, so it's available for free (and even packaged in Debian...) PS: The equality operator is =. RegardS: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
