On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:05:01PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Scenario A: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells
> > anyone
> > has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
> >
> > Scenario B: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells
> > anyone
> > has a r
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:34:30AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
>
> > The exact output of command -v is not given by POSIX.
>
> I believe it says
>
> When the -v option is specified, standard output shall be formatted as:
>
> "%s\n",
Are you referring to the extra new line that ash outputs after
>>"Robert" == Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> It doesn't need to be enforced, of course.
If it does not have enough technical merit to justify being
enforced, it does not belong in policy. Perhaps the best practices
guidelines would be a better home for this.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:53:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>
> Ack. No, this not something that needs to be policy, as it has no affect
> on the interoperation of the packages and programs on the system. The
> names are probably the upstream names, and it's much better to match
> that, so th
On 19-Jun-02, 05:21 (CDT), Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.5.6.1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain
> filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck):
>
> e2fsprogs
> reiserfsprogs
> dosfstools
> xfsprogs
> j
> Scenario A: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
> has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
>
> Scenario B: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
> has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
Why on earth should this be so? Is saying "T
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: wishlist
Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain
filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck):
e2fsprogs
reiserfsprogs
dosfstools
xfsprogs
jfsutils
I think it'd be a good thing if Policy suggested
to use a commonly agreed naming sch
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 07:59:33AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond "random document
> > X says so" for bugs filed at a "serious" severity.
> How about I litter all my #!/bin/sh postinsts with useless zshisms?
How about we add "I'm not such an i
> Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond "random document
> X says so" for bugs filed at a "serious" severity.
How about I litter all my #!/bin/sh postinsts with useless zshisms?
Then when people file bugs, I say "Haha, fuck you; it works for me."
> debian-policy -- says you shou
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:20:19AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I'm surprised by how many package scripts use kill, but the number is
> > not excessive.
> On the other hand, no one seems to want to fix these.
Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond "random document
X says so" fo
> I'm surprised by how many package scripts use kill, but the number is
> not excessive.
On the other hand, no one seems to want to fix these. Instead of a
one-line fix, histrionics, bug-closings, and references to Solaris seem
to be in order.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
> Sure, so could command -v. The problem is with the amount of scripts
> that use them.
Once most packages are recompiled with newer debhelper, the command -v
problem should pretty much disappear with the exception of of Branden's
packages.
I've already received positive feedback on most of the
> Forbidden by POSIX:
I see. I'll correct the test.
> The exact output of command -v is not given by POSIX.
I believe it says
When the -v option is specified, standard output shall be formatted as:
"%s\n",
Am I looking in the wrong place?
> More details please.
"%s=%s\n", name, value
--
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:26:35AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
>
> I've already filed some bugs on 'trap'-misusing packages.
> test -a, -o, and parentheses could easily be replaced by and-or listse
Sure, so could command -v. The problem is with the amount of scripts
that use them.
--
Debian GNU/L
> 2. There are some features which are regularly used in maintainer
> and other scripts which depend on them, e.g.,
> the options -a and -o, as well as parentheses for the
> test command or [.
> the obsolescent forms of kill and trap: kill -INT or kill -9.
I've already filed some
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:00:36AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Please be more specific.
>
> ash:
>
> does not handle multiple heredocs
Thanks, this will be fixed.
> read-write fd's do not behave usefully[1]
Not specified by POSIX.
> treats $10 as ${1}0
Forbidden by POSIX:
1358
> Please be more specific.
ash:
does not handle multiple heredocs
read-write fd's do not behave usefully[1]
treats $10 as ${1}0
does not support cd -L
does not support cd -P
echo -n
incorrect output for command -v
incorrect output for alias
POSIX-mode bash:
echo -n
incorrect output for command
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Apparently due to sleep-deprivation, I confused Herbert's assertion with
> fact. It's set -h that's forbidden. Debian does not need XSI for set -e.
I appologise for this incorrect assertion. I had misread the canonical
form of set. set -e is indeed spe
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 03:56:12AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
>
> I'd be happy with SUSv3, UP relevant to non-interactive use, and the
> appropriate subset of XSI. Of course, you realize that this reverses
> the 'echo -n' exception and that people will cry.
I have nothing against keeping the echo
19 matches
Mail list logo
