* Herbert Xu said: > > > If you mean they use ash as /bin/sh and rely on features that are not > > > part of POSIX, they are on their own. > > > > 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. > > If they did they would've made it mandatory. Not quite so. I understand that optional parts of the standard fall into two categories: a) features considered as rarely needed, therefore possibly bloating the implementation, b) features that are not supported by *all* implementations of the given standard, therefore made optional to allow for the co-existence of both full, and partial implementations. > > Your desire to break this is not justified by the POSIX standard. > > OK, let me spell it out to you again. ash only exists on Debian to serve as > an alternative /bin/sh. That's only possible if all #!/bin/sh scripts were > restircted by some standard. That standard happens to be POSIX.2, which > currently forbids the use of *any* options in shell scripts because it does > not require them in shells. You keep repeating this argument, but so far you haven't presented us the relevant fragment of the standard that specifically forbids the behavior. > True, exiting for -n is probably within the parameters. But remember we're > trying to catch -e as well. -e is not even in half that common as -n, so it's not a big deal to get rid of all the -e's from the scripts that actually use it. marek
Attachment:
pgpXgrehyGxhA.pgp
Description: PGP signature