On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's time for me to chime in too, although I don't know what exactly POSIX-sh standard defines.
> On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 01:19 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 02-11-2007 17:35:08 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > > I don't see them as inferior. > > > I see them as more portable and less confusing. > > > > Please stop calling it "more portable". > > But is it more portable as then then works across more than one shell. > > > The shell code you see in > > configure can in a way be called "portable". Your POSIX compliant stuff > > isn't. > > Sure it is - it should work on a shell that claims POSIX compliance. > > > In fact, by stating #!/bin/sh you actually make the code useless > > on a number of platforms, where it would have been working fine if there > > just were #!/bin/bash there. > > Then the issue is to fix their sh so it follows POSIX compliance. > As soon as a dash, bb or FreeBSD sh issue is found where it deviates > from POSIX but it works on bash a lot of people say "dash bug, therefore > invalid Agreed, but (speaking for alt/prefix): Alt/prefix is designed to (mainly) work without superuser access on the target machine, which may also be Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and the like. /bin/sh on such a machine is not POSIX-shell, but old bourne-shell (unfortunately with bugs often). And it is _impossible_ to have sysadmins to get /bin/sh a POSIX-Shell nor to have that bugs fixed. But yes, on most machines there is /bin/ksh, which IMHO is POSIX compliant (maybe also with non-fixable bugs). Although I do not know yet for which _installed_ scripts it'd be really useful to have them non-bash in alt/prefix, I appreciate the discussion. To see benefits for alt/prefix too, it _might_ require that discussion going from requiring /bin/sh being POSIX-sh towards being bourne-shell... > > > It seems to me that you actually mean "more FreeBSD-able" or something, > > which is a high price to pay for a relatively small part of Gentoo as a > > whole. > > More embeddable. > More BSDable. > More Linuxable - bash isn't the only linux shell, there are plently of > others. More (generic) unix-able. /haubi/ -- Michael Haubenwallner Gentoo on a different level -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
