2017-05-24 16:15:03 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chaze...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If your "configure" script works with "mksh" but not with > > "posh", I suspect it's because that script is using non-POSIX > > ksh extensions, as basically mksh is pdksh with a few fixes and > > extensions added, while posh is pdksh with a few fixes and most > > ksh extensions (over POSIX, not over Bourne) removed. > > This is not true... > > A configure script (if done correctly) is a script with _very_ > pessimistic assumptions on portability. Given that "posh" completely fails > here, makes it unusable for every day work.
Without being more specific than a script named "configure", I can't really help. Even if you mean a GNU autoconf generated "configure" script, that will still depend on whatever extra "check" code snipets the developer has haded. > > Note that AFAIK, posh's target is the Debian policy, not POSIX. Though > > the Debian policy is for the most part a superset of POSIX (and > > a few parts from Unix/XSI) > > I have no idea what "posh" targets, but given that: > > posh > $ exit > posh: exit: bad number Let's be serious, if "posh" had such a bug it would have been reported long ago and fixed. Presumably, you've compiled it in a such way or on such a system that has never been tested before and triggered a bug. "exit" definitely works in the Debian package of "posh" (the primary target system as its goal is to be a tool for Debian developers to identify non-POSIX usages). [...] > > > bosh > > > > As discussed, as of the 2017-05-16 release, posh was not POSIX > > and still had many of non-conformances of the Bourne shell. > > "posh" has a 2017-05-16 release? Sorry again. As I clarified in a later email, I meant "bosh", not "posh". [...] > Back to zsh: > > If there is no way to modify this command line: > > CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/zsh /usr/bin/zsh ./configure > > in a way that allows to run the configure script, this is a bad > state for the current usability of zsh. I currently need to do the > following: > > cp /usr/bin/zsh /tmp > CONFIG_SHELL=/tmp/sh /tmp/sh ./configure [...] I don't see how that has anything to do with the usability of zsh, but you can always add: if [ -n "$ZSH_EMULATION" ]; then emulate "$ZSH_EMULATION" fi to your ~/.zshenv and run your "configure" script as: ZSH_EMULATION=sh CONFIG_SHELL=/usr/bin/zsh /usr/bin/zsh ./configure > > mksh, bash and yash at least have a "posix" option to enforce a > > more compliant mode (at least bash enables it when invoked as > > "sh"). See also the xpg_echo option in bash which you also need > > to have a compliant echo. > > There are a few features where the "Bourne Shell" would cause problems > with existing Bourne Shell scripts if it was by default 100% POSIX. Yes of course, POSIX is not backward compatible with the Bourne shell, nobody denies that. The POSIX spec was never based on the Bourne shell. You cannot make a shell both Bourne compatible and POSIX compatible at the same time. > For this reason it implements set -o posix that is auto-activated if it was > installed as /usr/xpg4/bin/sh (note that a symlink will not work here). > > If you like to use the Bourne Shell as Linux default shell, compile it with: [...] As discussed, even with -o posix, in my tests it's still not POSIX (for instance with regards to the environment processing, with regards to redirected compound commands being run in subshells, and $IFS processing at least). -- Stephane
