Date:Mon, 17 Jul 2017 15:35:38 +0200
From:Edgar =?iso-8859-1?B?RnXf?=
Message-ID: <20170717133538.gw50...@trav.math.uni-bonn.de>
| Are we talking about (in POSIX speak) "utilities implemented as a built-in"
No.
| (as opposed to "built-in utilities"
Those.
|
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:38:19AM +0200, Edgar Fuß wrote:
> But there's a difference between a general-purpose notification mechanism
> and a process notifying it's (grand)parent exactly once upon statup, no?
Of course - but I thought that assumptions and observations related
to general-purpose
> For what little it's worth, here's where this silly requirement can be found
> (in case you're still looking for it):
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition/utilities/V3_chap01
As this is in the "introduction" section and there's a more precise (and more
sensible) defin
> This leads to the crux of the matter - I have been told that POSIX
> actually requires that all of the commands in this third category (actually
> all the sh built-in commands, except the special built-ins) have an
> executable that can be subject of an execvp(2) call. The second group
> already
> IMHO that problem was already faced by supervisor's authors - for
> example s6's author puts some thoughts and summaries on their pages:
But there's a difference between a general-purpose notification mechanism
and a process notifying it's (grand)parent exactly once upon statup, no?
