ing-things.
>
> It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash".
> Those could be put to a stress test through:
>
> /bin/dash
> /bin/posh
> ...
>
> If someone feels up to.
I don't really see the point. If the ma
from bashisms.
You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.
Oh, and there *are* other suitable interactive shells than bash. tcsh,
ksh,
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:56:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> > in their shell scripts...
>
> Why? Who cares?
Well,
for most users. That doesn't mean we should limit
ourselves to using bash for non-interactive use though.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.
ntial to use only SuSv3 compliant features. I think
rewriting *all* scripts to use only SuSv3 features would be too big of
an ordeal, but just fixing the initscripts, plus all scripts in
essential should be doable.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my windo
e *much*
> easier. Isn't that enough?
If you just want to avoid things breaking, it's enough. If you want to
be able to use the scripts on an embedded platform, or to take advantage
of the performance boost of using dash instead of bash, it isn't.
Regards: David
--
/) David We
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
> >
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
> >
> >
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
> > is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
>
> Guess what? I used bash on that old hardware when it was shiny and new
> also. Didn't seem to have any problems.
Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
Regards: David
--
/) David
ds: on."
This proposal has some merit, as long as we do s/POSIX/SuSv3/.
Also, we probably want to make exceptions for find/xargs (to get -0).
[snip]
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
//
ing "debconf" is *also* not allowed, because it is *also* not a
> "POSIX feature". The point is that "POSIX feature" is *not* a
> specification of anything, given the way that POSIX deals with builtins.
Sorry, but that's a strawman, for two reasons. First, POSI
a sort of
> blessing to using an absolute path in this situation, since coreutils test
> is not quite "any other program that one would expect to be on the PATH"
> simply because in this case the shell isn't going to *look* at the PA
d help to be reminded that I can't really
> depend on very much of the semantics of local from any specific
> implementation.
>
> fname () {
> local a # keep it simple
> a='' # initialize the variable
> use a ...
> }
> is the only s
guess, as long as we get rid of crap like [[ ]], <, >, -nt,
-ot, -ef, $RANDOM, $"...", read -e, declare, typeset, function (augh, I
cannot understand why bash even introduced that one), let, source
(again, completely pointless), pushd, popd, &>, {}...
I can probably come up wit
p of people that caused it to fail...
> Before this there was a widely agree definition of what
> /bin/sh needs to support and almost no bugs related to this.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~
cases
>
> Sure but adding entries to the changelog does not magically update the
> date.
Then I suggest you start using dch.
[snip]
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~ // Diam
erver CGI files are expected"
should probably read
"Packages ..."
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ B
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.0.0
Severity: minor
In the file upgrading-checklist.txt.gz,
"packages that invole initscripts now must use invoke-rc.d to do"
should read "... invoke ..."
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED
7;t have /usr/libexec
SunOS/Solaris doesn't have /usr/libexec
Irix doesn't have /usr/libexec
Oh, and what's probably more important (and relevant), the FHS doesn't
mention a /usr/libexec
/David
_ _
// David Weinehal
19 matches
Mail list logo
