Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-26 Thread Hubert Chan
On 25 Nov 2006 10:02:14 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >> > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can >> > post a patch to provide alternative

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-26 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 12:20:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Because it is _NOT_ a bug in bash, it is a feature. AFAIR (it was some > >> time ago I've looked at the code trying to fix

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-26 Thread Russ Allbery
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Because it is _NOT_ a bug in bash, it is a feature. AFAIR (it was some >> time ago I've looked at the code trying to fix this issue) bash >> guarantees some environment variables to always exist and to have a >> c

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-26 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:02:45PM +0100, Gabor Gombas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:22:06AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > This is an excellent example of doing the wrong thing, in my opinion. > > > > Why not fix the bash bug instead?? > > Because it is _NOT_

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-26 Thread Gabor Gombas
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:22:06AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > This is an excellent example of doing the wrong thing, in my opinion. > > Why not fix the bash bug instead?? Because it is _NOT_ a bug in bash, it is a feature. AFAIR (it was some time ago I've looked at the code trying to fi