> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
> know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
> best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
> the approach of documenting the specific features that we require and
> assu
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:51 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
> > have raised in the past.
> It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
> problems
On Nov 06, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + the -a and -o test operators
> > + must be supported
> Why is that needed ?
Because every modern shell which is not designed to be broken supports
them, and since they are in widespread use everywhere there is no reason
to no su
On Nov 06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
> have raised in the past.
It's still better than what we have now, and solving parts of the
problems is still better than waiting for the ultimate policy change
which
Russ's patch is no good, at least, it does not address the problems I
have raised in the past.
A Posix shell is allowed to have a builtin for ANY command without
restriction, and as long as the builtin has the behavior specified by
Posix for that command, it is a "Posix compatible shell."
For exa
I'd like to see this say something about what may be assumed of the
standard shell utilities, as well as the shell itself, and in
particular I'd like to see coreutils bug #339085 addressed [please see
the bug log for my personal very strong opinion on which way it should
be addressed].
zw
--
To
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
> >> in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
>
> > I can try to pro
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061106 04:41]:
> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach?
Sounds good, thanks for your work.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
On Sun, 2006-11-05 at 19:41 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here's a proposed patch. What do people think about this approach? I
> know there was an inconclusive Policy discussion a while back about how
> best to deal with this issue. As you can tell from this patch, I favor
> the approach of docum
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 07:41:40PM -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> + the -a and -o test operators
> + must be supported
Why is that needed ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:41:40 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> + local to create a scoped variable must be
> + supported
Underspecified. local in dash and bash behave differently. In dash the
variable value from outer scope is retained, in bash it is not.
Bugs caused by this do
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
>> in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
> I can try to propose better language for this. I think that using pure
> bash-specific cons
12 matches
Mail list logo
