On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I assume that posh meets the strict definition of 10.4. And so > without actually changing policy, someone _could_ try setting /bin/sh > to be /bin/posh, and then start filing RC bugs against packages that > have scripts that break. Yes?
Yes, modulo two things: ① Bugs in posh – posh derives from pdksh, currently. It probably would need to be rebased on mksh. I wonder if it’s worth doing it upstream; currently, there is not enough interest for it from actual users. (I did hear from one or the other distro they’d prefer a /bin/sh that did not have extensions over POSIX, but…) ② The CTTE decision of #539158 to not overturn Md, which in turn requires for a shell to have a printf(1) builtin since #428189 (the only way to fix it that does not involve Md) is also, de facto, rejected – meaning a switch to posh will cause most systems to fail to boot. (The mksh binary package ships an lksh binary, which uses the C “long” type for arithmetics, as required by POSIX, instead of consistent arithmetic ops, and also bundles a minimal (busybox/klibc-like) printf builtin, in order to be able to use it as /bin/sh on Debian.) bye, //mirabilos -- 15:41⎜<Lo-lan-do:#fusionforge> Somebody write a testsuite for helloworld :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/alpine.deb.2.11.1410131213030.28...@tglase.lan.tarent.de
