Hi Zack Weinberg schrieb: > This has come up before. Remember the endless argument over echo -n? > In the end that led to an explicit additional requirement on /bin/sh > being written into policy. The only alternative I see to my proposal > is to continue to add explicit additional requirements on /bin/sh, > with associated endless arguments, every time someone changes their > shell implementation incompatibly. Do we really want that?
Ok, I see. Can we change the last sentence in: > ! The standard shell interpreter `<tt>/bin/sh</tt>' is a > ! symbolic link to a POSIX compatible shell. Since the POSIX > ! standard for shells leaves important areas unspecified, > ! wherever it is lacking, `<tt>/bin/sh</tt>' shall follow the > ! <em>consensus behavior</em> of other shell interpreters. > ! Consensus behavior is determined by testing at least five > ! shell interpreters which claim to be POSIX compatible. to "Consensus behavior is determined by testing all shells which register for the /bin/sh alternative in the distribution the script is meant for." Note that there is currently no /bin/sh alternative. (why not?) I think it would be really bad to have scripts in the distribution which work with some /bin/sh but don't with others. If a given script doesn't work with a /bin/sh alternative, hardwire it's shell or, if the shell makes to much trouble, don't register it for the /bin/sh alternative. ciao, 2ri -- We'll try to make different mistakes this time. -- Larry Wall in "Apocalypse Two"