[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] latest ash has broken 'echo' command



On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 12:00:32AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > If you mean they use ash as /bin/sh and rely on features that are not
> > > part of POSIX, they are on their own.

On Sun, Oct 24, 1999 at 11:50:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > echo -n is an optional part of POSIX. The POSIX committee clearly
> > intends that systems continue to support echo -n or backslash escape
> > codes to support their legacy software.

On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:09:16AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> If they did they would've made it mandatory.

No.  Mandantory behavior is for portable software.  Optional behavior
is for legacy software.

> > > > There's nothing wrong with the debian fork of ash, from the POSIX point
> > > > of view.  There's nothing wrong with the upstream form of ash, from the
> > > > POSIX point of view.  They're just different.
> > > 
> > > Actually, neither are POSIX compliant at the moment with respect to echo.
> > 
> > Please provide a quote from the standard which supports this point of
> > view.
> 
> Both support -e.

Ok.

> > > POSIX does not allow you to exit with an error.
> > 
> > <quote>
> >     string      A string to be written to standard output.  If the first
> >                 operand is "-n" or if any of the operands contain a
> >                 backslash (\) character, the results are implementation
> >                 defined.
> > </quote>
> > 
> > Ok, it's true that I've not verified that "exit with an error" fits within
> > the technical POSIX definition for "implementation defined".  I've lost
> > the url for the posix draft.  If you know of a reference which shows that
> > exit with an error is an inappropriate "implementation defined" result
> > then I'll accept that this isn't the right approach.
> 
> True, exiting for -n is probably within the parameters.  But remember we're
> trying to catch -e as well.

(a) That's a much smaller problem.

(b) -e implies the existence of backslash escape codes.

Unless the posix standard has different language than the above quoted
text I think that the "strict sh" shell would do fine exiting with an
error and an error message when backslash escape codes are present.

-- 
Raul


Reply to: