While I still have access to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] email, I'll respond here.
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > 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. > 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... Actually you missed the mark completely. Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *could* be /bin/sh and on the systems where /bin/sh is not possible to change to a POSIX compliant shell then it can still use /bin/bash or wherever it's installed. This also applies to the userland tools. If the ebuild or eclass *has* to use the GNU variants then it should either adjust $PATH so that it finds them first, or it prefixes them all with g, like it does on Gentoo/FreeBSD. None of this is technically challenging in itself, it's just that the key people who would have to do the work to make this possible have already given a flat out no. > > > 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. Exactly so :) Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
