On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 03:56:12AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
I'd be happy with SUSv3, UP relevant to non-interactive use, and the
appropriate subset of XSI. Of course, you realize that this reverses
the 'echo -n' exception and that people will cry.
I have nothing against keeping the echo -n
Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently due to sleep-deprivation, I confused Herbert's assertion with
fact. It's set -h that's forbidden. Debian does not need XSI for set -e.
I appologise for this incorrect assertion. I had misread the canonical
form of set. set -e is indeed
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:00:36AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Please be more specific.
ash:
does not handle multiple heredocs
Thanks, this will be fixed.
read-write fd's do not behave usefully[1]
Not specified by POSIX.
treats $10 as ${1}0
Forbidden by POSIX:
1358
2. There are some features which are regularly used in maintainer
and other scripts which depend on them, e.g.,
the options -a and -o, as well as parentheses for the
test command or [.
the obsolescent forms of kill and trap: kill -INT or kill -9.
I've already filed some
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 02:26:35AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
I've already filed some bugs on 'trap'-misusing packages.
test -a, -o, and parentheses could easily be replaced by and-or listse
Sure, so could command -v. The problem is with the amount of scripts
that use them.
--
Debian
Forbidden by POSIX:
I see. I'll correct the test.
The exact output of command -v is not given by POSIX.
I believe it says
When the -v option is specified, standard output shall be formatted as:
%s\n, pathname or command
Am I looking in the wrong place?
More details please.
%s=%s\n,
I'm surprised by how many package scripts use kill, but the number is
not excessive.
On the other hand, no one seems to want to fix these. Instead of a
one-line fix, histrionics, bug-closings, and references to Solaris seem
to be in order.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:20:19AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
I'm surprised by how many package scripts use kill, but the number is
not excessive.
On the other hand, no one seems to want to fix these.
Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond random document
X says so for bugs
Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond random document
X says so for bugs filed at a serious severity.
How about I litter all my #!/bin/sh postinsts with useless zshisms?
Then when people file bugs, I say Haha, fuck you; it works for me.
debian-policy -- says you should do
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 07:59:33AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
Imagine, people actually wanting a justification beyond random document
X says so for bugs filed at a serious severity.
How about I litter all my #!/bin/sh postinsts with useless zshisms?
How about we add I'm not such an idiot to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: wishlist
Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain
filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck):
e2fsprogs
reiserfsprogs
dosfstools
xfsprogs
jfsutils
I think it'd be a good thing if Policy suggested
to use a commonly agreed naming
Scenario A: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
Scenario B: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
Why on earth should this be so? Is saying The
On 19-Jun-02, 05:21 (CDT), Robert Millan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.1
Severity: wishlist
Taking a look at packages in Debian that contain
filesystem maintainance utilities (mkfs and fsck):
e2fsprogs
reiserfsprogs
dosfstools
xfsprogs
jfsutils
I
On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 01:53:06PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Ack. No, this not something that needs to be policy, as it has no affect
on the interoperation of the packages and programs on the system. The
names are probably the upstream names, and it's much better to match
that, so that
14 matches
Mail list logo
