On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> The problem is that "POSIX feature" is a meaningless term in this > >> context. > > > > I see your point. > > I don't, but really, I am not sure I ought tobe spending much > more time on an arcane reading of this corner case.
"POSIX feature" could be read as referring to only those features mentioned by POSIX, period. I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation because it implies that stuff like, say, debconf, is out since it is not mentioned by POSIX---but it is ambiguous. > The issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can > come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf. I > suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a > bug in the shell. Policy is not supposed to be written to specify > all kinds of silly and deliberate malice on the part of shell > authors. Policy should be clear though. > > The use of commands included in the spec must comply with the spec > > of those commands. > > O, good grief. This is not Law 101. This is the technical > policy all kinds of non native developers must read, understand, and > follow; arcane corner cases and increasingly complex language to > resolve corner cases just makes policy asinine, turgid, obfuscated, > and abstruse. If packages can be tagged as RC buggy because of Policy violations then Policy is law. Other than that, I agree. - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]