Re: ash/echo/POSIX/SUS
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:18:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:
>
>
> Herbert> * I released a version of ash with echo that was SUS
> Herbert> compliant (this is also POSIX compliant). This was
> Herbert> foolish because we're less than 2 weeks away from the
> Herbert> freeze and that we've got a huge number of scripts that
> Herbert> aren't POSIX compliant in this respect.
>
> Is it your contention that an echo that accepts -n is
> violating POSIX? Can you quote, chapter and verse, please?
No, it's not his contention. It's his contention that an echo that doesn't
accept -n doesn't violate POSIX, so a script that depened on an echo that
accepts -n isn't POSIX complaint.
> Where does policy say that optional and implementation defined
> nuances of POSIX programs are to be deprecaed?
It says that a script that is #!/bin/sh must run on any POSIX shell,
hence such a script must not depend on echo -n.
Come on. While it's arguable wheather or not ash's echo should allow -n,
the facts of the matter seem clear by now for anyone paying attention.
Take it over to debian-policy and argue over what if anything should be changed
in policy, but enough on debian-devel.
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Reply to: