Santiago Vila wrote:
> Guy Maor wrote:
> > bash will never become nonessential.
>
> How can you know?
I don't think it really matters. The proposed policy is to use an explicit
#!/bin/bash for all scripts that require bash. If, one day, we decide that
bash should not be essential, a simple scan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Guy Maor wrote:
> bash will never become nonessential.
How can you know?
This remembers me the phrase "640K should be enough for everybody"...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNMN6NCqK7IlOjMLFAQEd2gP+OJUvgoxkPiME4ApWc/Njm
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Packages that contain scripts that use #!/bin/bash should depend on
> bash in case bash becomes a non-essential package
bash will never become nonessential.
Guy
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 08:04:36PM +, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 06:59:58PM +, James Troup wrote:
>
> > > A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> > > doesn't.
> >
> > 19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
> > $echo {foo,blah}
> > foo blah
> >
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:29:20PM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
>
> > I can't check with the original post, but personally I think that if a
> > script *does* use bash features then in addition to beginning "#!/bin/bash"
> > it should Depend: on bash.
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > > (and nothing more than that) when ca
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 06:59:58PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> > doesn't.
>
> 19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
> $echo {foo,blah}
> foo blah
> $
Yes, I think Adrian got them the wrong way round. pdksh does; AT+T ksh
does
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> doesn't.
Que?
19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $sudo dpkg -iEG pdksh_5.2.13-1.deb
[...]
19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
$echo {foo,blah}
foo blah
$
--
James
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2
> If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
> startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely
> as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as
> well.
>
>So, if POSIX says that the example above should be
>
>$
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2.01$ echo hello {the
If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely
as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as
well.
So, if POSIX says that the example above should be
$ echo hello {the
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2.01$ echo hello {the
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
It would appear not:
sh-2.01$ echo hello {there,world}
hello there world
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt,
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> I think that the shell should also run in "POSIX-mode" if it is invoked as
> sh - bash does this, I don't know about the others. I don't think it's very
> nice if we have to start doing things like "sh --posix ..." to get a POSIX
> shell.
Yes, I can
On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:05:45AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
> >
> > "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I also think the
> > > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alterna
> > I also think the
> > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
> > requirements) having the highest priority.
>
> How about "most standard", i.e., most in accordance w/ POSIX? ;)
> Anyone have any info
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
>
> [Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
>
> "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I also think the
> > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
>
[Sorry to be offtopic a bit]
"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I also think the
> link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives'
> system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor
> requirements) having the highest priority.
How about "mos
19 matches
Mail list logo
