On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:05:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 22:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I would rather get away from this wording totally. > > ,---- > > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX > > | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n .... . Also, > > | they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions, > > | as long as .... If a shell script uses features beyond this set > > | listed, then the appropriate shell must be specified in the first > > | line of the script (e.g., #!/bin/bash) and the package must depend on > > | the package providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked > > | "Essential", as in the case of bash). " > > `---- > > > > This does specify what the scripts may expect, but drops all > > wording from this section regarding what the policy expectation of > > /bin/sh is. > > No, this does *not* specify what scripts may expect. > > May I expect test to work with parentheses? If not, it must be because > 'test ( )' is not a "POSIX feature". And yet, there is nothing in Posix > which makes test have *anything* to do with the shell particularly. If > using 'test ( )' is not allowed, because it's not a "POSIX feature", > then using "debconf" is *also* not allowed, because it is *also* not a > "POSIX feature". The point is that "POSIX feature" is *not* a > specification of anything, given the way that POSIX deals with builtins.
Sorry, but that's a strawman, for two reasons. First, POSIX only covers commands that *are* part of POSIX, it does not specifies that other commands are illegal. Second of all, debconf does not have a history of being a builtin, test does. 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]
