* Herbert Xu said: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 1999 at 02:22:21PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > >> Because of this bit in our policy: > > > Again, what's your point? If a script doesn't behave properly it's a bug > > Well my point is that (after potato is released) we should either change > the policy because *so many* scripts break it as it now stands, or fix all A rule of majority, I think... > those scripts (that's going to be monumental) in which case the change in ash That's going to be impossible, IMHO. > would not matter. > > User shell scripts don't count. After all, user shell scripts can use and > have used any bashisms that they like, and that has never meant that NetBSD > or I had to implement any of them for ash. That's correct. And programmers and users should be taught to put the shell whose features they actually use in the header and not always #!/bin/sh. This, btw, should also become a part of the policy. If somebody has to use bashism (for example) and bash is a Required part of Debian, then he's allowed to provided that he'll put #!/bin/bash in the header. Same goes for csh-isms, ash-isms and other -isms. > > against the script. But you're not doing users a service by breaking > > things because you think they're wrong. Ash had a behavior. Its behavior > > You're right that *our* ash had a behaviour. It's GNU's behaviour. Suprise > surprise. I copied echo.c across from shell-utils a couple years back > because NetBSD's ash insisted that -n come before -e. So echo -e -n or > echo -ne would not work. They still don't work with the current NetBSD > version. Well, it's the BSD way, GNU's not Unix, GNU's not BSD, but GNU follows POSIX. > The fact of the matter for ash is, do we want it to be a shell that can only > run POSIX compliant scripts (defined as scripts that can execute with all > POSIX compliant shells), or do we want it to be a shell that includes all > the optional features allowed by POSIX so that it can run shell scripts > that aren't POSIX compliant? Hmm... If it supports both optional and mandatory features allowed by POSIX it's still POSIX compliant, right? Then I vote for ash to support all POSIX features. marek
Attachment:
pgpMeu9iGQF56.pgp
Description: PGP signature