Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
> To get away from the dick waving "my shell is bigger than yours"
> discussions for a minute ...
>
> In note 3745 attached to http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=767
> Joerg Schilling proposes making a list of shells to use to help
> guide what can be regarded as "standard" for the purposes of compliance.
>
> In that he said ...
>
> First, I believe that "yash" and "posh" should not be in that list
> because these implementations are too buggy or have unexplained
> deviations
>
> with which I don't agree. First, because any existing deviations with
> the standard aren't really (or at least, necessarily) relevant when
> considering some new issue, and second if a shell (any shell) does not
Well I believe it matters when a shell like "posh" fails in _many_ places
because the code of the shell is not POSIX compliant.
It may be that the authors of posh did never compile it on a POSIX system.
Last weekend, I had a look into the source and discovered that it is _expected_
to fail, the way it was written, because it ignores the getopt() documentation.
It looks interesting that the problem is inside one of two files that is (unlike
the rest) using a GPL header. The rest of the code is OK, so it looks like one
of
those cases where Debian people modified code and thus caused problems.
The commands that fail (are unusable) because of that problem are:
break, cd, exit, export, eval (dumps core), pwd, readonly, return,
set, shift, trap, umask
To me, posh thus makes no sense to be tested at all until it is fixed.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
