On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 18:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you > > are asking lots of *extra* effort. > > I think the two of you are spending far more effort *arguing* about this > than it actually takes, in practice, to keep Debian scripts invoking /bin/sh > compatible with dash. That is, after all, the point you're currently > arguing against, even though this result is already implied by policy's > current mandate for POSIX-compliant maintainer scripts when using /bin/sh as > an interpreter. Has this requirement ever cost you (or anyone) so much > development time that this thread is anything other than absurdly > disproportionate?
Actually, I am not arguing against the desire to make scripts compatible with dash. That you think so indicates to me that I have been entirely unsuccessful in getting people to believe me when I have (repeatedly) tried to explain carefully what I *am* arguing. I am arguing that the current policy requirement simply does not mean what people think it means. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
