On 1/3/20 10:49 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Santiago, > >> I'm curious, though, are there any specifics about the providers on >> these POSIX tools/libraries/whatnot (i.e., would it be wortwhile >> discussing the alternatives?). > > Is sh being provided by bash(1)? A more POSIX-compliant shell may be > better, one that doesn't let lots of bashisms pass without complaint. > dash(1)? And dash doesn't have time as a built-in, so we get to pull in > an executable for that too.
Currently, sh is provided exclusively by bash, though ksh, zsh, mksh and busybox also provide a "time" builtin. I guess it would be reasonable to uncomment it. > As for SCCS, it's a handy file format. Better in design that RCS's. > And used by other tools over the years, e.g. Bitkeeper, so they do > linger on. Plus it's a historical file format, just as ncompress was > sought to be more POSIX compliant. But ncompress is simple to package and generally useful -- it can even be used by makepkg for extremely fast compression (albeit not as compressible as gzip or other recent formats). SCCS would require me to actually package it! So I need to decide if I'm interested in the effort that would take, for an XSI option. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
