On Wed, 18 May 2011 17:33:04 +0000 Christoph Anton Mitterer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2011 09:38:26 +1000, Karl Goetz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It says: > >> The following commands, or symbolic links to commands, are required > >> in /bin. > > [...] > >> sh The Bourne command shell > > [...] > >> If /bin/sh is not a true Bourne shell, it must be a hard or > >> symbolic link to the real shell command. > > We definitely should change this IMHO,... is the true Bourne shell > still maintained at all? Is it open sourced? Note it says '... a true Bourne shell, ...' , which I've always taken to mean 'a shell compatible with Bourne shell'. > I guess the best is it, if we define sh to be the POSIX /bin/sh and > conforming to the POSIX "Shell Command Language". > See the links I've included in one of my previous emails. Yeah. > >> The requirement for the [ and test commands to be included as > >> binaries (even if implemented internally by the shell) is shared > >> with the POSIX.2 standard. > > > > I guess we could add printf next to [ in that entry? > > I personally would require all these utilities to be (at least) POISX > compatible. > Of course the real world looks different in that thes programs > (typically the GNU versions) have much more functionality. > But GNU is not a standard, it's just one implementation,... and if we > say POSIX compatible in the meaning that this is at leas supported,.. > we can still have extensions. That sounds sensible, allows people to use non-GNU tools too :) > >> But this would already open up the abuse from applications as the > >> CG stuff I've mentioned before. > > > > key word here is abuse - i don't believe they'll stop abusing it > > just because we explicitly say they should. > probably,... well.. for some of them it might have been just a matter > of not knowing... I suspect they'll continue to not know, unless we go and point it out to them. > >> > We can't know which filesystems this is in advance. > >> That's why I say,.. put it completely in the hands of the distros. > > > > Hm, not sure about this - same with your printf above - what about > > had coded paths? > > Well... scripts having this hardcoded must be fixed then of course,... > either by using their distro specific location,.. or by setting a > general PATH. But how does this differ from printf? You said it should be included at a certain location because people might have it hard coded into scripts, here you say the scripts should be fixed. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
