On Monday 05 November 2007, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:13 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > 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. > > So "have the installed scripts to not require bash" is another topic ?
yes, and generally that's a baked topic. if your script is /bin/sh, then it must be POSIX compliant. if your script is /bin/bash, then you're encouraged to convert it to POSIX /bin/sh. but this is because the *runtime* environment is generally a lot more restricted than that of the *buildtime* environment. runtime implies a lot leaner requirements (think binary-only systems, embedded systems, production systems, etc...) than that of a development system (which requires everything in order to compile). > Ok then: > Given that we want to have the tree "more generic unix-able": > What is the benefit from having the tree being POSIX- but not > bourne-shell compatible, so one still needs bash on Solaris/AIX/HP-UX ? > Because I'd say those three are the biggest substitutes for "unix", > while I'd call *BSD and Linux just "unix derivates" (although with > enhancements)... we want the installed environment to be portable, not the build environment. i do not see any benefit from forcing the build environment to be pure POSIX compliant and i see many many detrimental problems. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
