On Friday, 1 March 2013 at 17:13:45 +0000, Chris Rees wrote: > On 1 Mar 2013 14:27, "Jilles Tjoelker" <jil...@stack.nl> wrote: >> The find(1) and stat(1) approaches also work in other shells such as >> bash, ksh and zsh. An extension to test(1) can only be used by writing >> ugly things like /bin/test. Whatever you may think of it, people write >> scripts for those other shells and it is somewhat unfortunate that they >> cannot use all FreeBSD-specific features. > > +1 > > While I'm aware that we have many very useful extensions to sh, we > should not sacrifice portability.
This doesn't sacrifice portability. If you're aiming for complete portability, you may choose not to use these extensions, or to find alternatives for non-FreeBSD systems. This goes for just about every utility. > We (porters) are on thin ground when complaining at upstream for > assuming /bin/sh is bash when we have extensions such as these. There's a difference between having extensions and expecting them to be present everywhere. But you have a point: it should be documented that these extensions (and also <, >, -nt, -ot and -ef) are not portable. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
pgpQL9yNleOC0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
