On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement... > > > > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and > > refused to declare #!/bin/bash." > > > > ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their > > binary -a operator as having the same behaviour. > > > > Is their some Bourne style command interpreter other than dash in > > Debian which offers to provide "sh"? > > No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not > available from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell, and POSIX > doesn't guarantee the binary -a operator.
Since all sh's in Debian provide compatible binary -a operators, #!/bin/sh is appropriate when that operator is used and Policy is not being violated. Ya? > The reason why I started this whole thread was because every shell > that people use in practice as /bin/sh does support that operator, > and I don't think that we're realistically likely to get all the > shell scripts in Debian to change to not assume that when it doesn't > cause problems in practice. I don't see why scripts would need to change. I can see how mention of -a in Policy could be considered as cruft, but it would serve to identify -a as a requirement, in addition to POSIX, which any command interperter in Debian purporting to be "sh" needs to abide by... is that what you are trying to get clarified? Sorry, I got lost trying to follow all the diffs to Policy I've seen. - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
