Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think checkbashisms and posh are an improvement over just suggesting
>> bash (and checkbashisms, in particular, is much easier to use), so my
>> inclination is to stick with the new wording and leave the further details
>> for other tools.
> I a
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think checkbashisms and posh are an improvement over just suggesting
> bash (and checkbashisms, in particular, is much easier to use), so my
> inclination is to stick with the new wording and leave the further details
> for other tools.
I assume by 'bash' you mean 'dash' a
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> I tend to find checking syntax ($shell -n) and running with "bash",
> "dash", "mksh", and "ksh93" more useful than posh for checking that a
> script is portable to the main POSIX-style shells in common use.
I certainly understand your point here, but I think this is the
Russ Allbery wrote:
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7968,10 +7968,12 @@ fname () {
[...]
> - as its interpreter. If your script works with dash
> - (originally called ash), it probably complies with
> - the above requirements, but if you are in doubt, use
> -
Raphael Geissert writes:
> I fail to see why policy states (10.4):
>> You may wish to restrict your script to SUSv3 features plus the above
>> set when possible so that it may use /bin/sh as its interpreter. If
>> your script works with dash (originally called ash), it probably
>> complies with
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.0.1
Severity: wishlist
I fail to see why policy states (10.4):
> You may wish to restrict your script to SUSv3 features plus the above set
> when possible so that it may use /bin/sh as its interpreter. If your script
> works with dash (originally called ash), i
6 matches
Mail list logo
