On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > > > actual list should be given? Saying
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > > restricts way too muc
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
> ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
Ok, so this means something like the following would be good for policy:
"When POSIX specifies a c
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:22:32 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> POSIX does not distinguish at all between the status of echo, ls,
> and test. It puts them in the same section, talks about them in the
> same terms, and so forth. In no way does POSIX say or imply that
> the
> > I know what Posix.2 says, but it does not define the term "POSIX
> > compatible shell". Can you tell me what that means? I really am
> > genuinely stymied. I think some people have an incorrect
> > understanding of what POSIX actually says in this regard, but I'm
> > not sure.
>
>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a POSIX
>> (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
>> understood
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Debian Technical policy is applicable to Debian systems. A
> POSIX shell, in this context, lives on a Debian OS. I the shell
> overrides debconf in an incompatible manner, that would break things,
> and would be a grave bu
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can
> come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf. I
> suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a
> bug in the shell. Policy is
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a
> POSIX (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
> understood that the shells in question do not have grave bugs.
I know what Posix.2 says,
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>>
>> > AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
>> > shell" does not really convey wha
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:06:15 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>>
>> AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
>> shell" does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better
>> to state that, `o
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:36:47 +0100, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is
> /bin/bash (because /bin/sh is not a config file, and baring policy
> authorization, users are not supposed to change symlinks in
> /bin).
No. Deb
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and
>
> Could you
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
> > >
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 01:36:47PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is /bin/bash
> (because /bin/sh is not a config file, and baring policy authorization,
> users are not supposed to change symlinks in /bin).
Such changes are not guaranteed to
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:50:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:14 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I would rather get away from this wording totally.
> ,
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | feat
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 10:37]:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 1
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 05:57]:
> ,
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also,
> | they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions,
> | as long as ...
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
> >
> > I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more pos
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
>
> I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
> than just /bin/bash.
So can we just decide what the po
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
than just /bin/bash.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
23 matches
Mail list logo
