On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 05:31:59AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 07:46:22PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > > There's something wrong with your mail setup. I never got that message. > > Not that it makes any difference to my decision though. > > Things in messages to control that aren't commands to the BTS don't get > CC'ed. I didn't see your little screed until I examined the BTS, either.
Fair enough. I usually cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] when reassigning, but obviously I neglected to do it this time around. > > > Herbert says: > > > Here is what the SuS says (AFAIK POSIX says the same thing): > > How about finding out for sure? Sure. Here's the bit from the POSIX draft at ftp://ftp.inf.tu-dresden.de/documentation/standards/posix/p1003.2/d11.2/p221-240.z: (5) If the current character is an unquoted $ or `, the shell shall identify the start of any candidates for parameter expansion (3.6.2), command substitution (3.6.3), or arithmetic expansion (3.6.4) from their introductory unquoted character sequences: $ or ${, $( or `, and $((, respectively. The shell shall read sufficient input to determine the end of the unit to be expanded (as explained in the cited subclauses). While processing the characters, if instances of expansions or quoting are found nested within the substitution, the shell shall recursively process them in the manner specified for the construct that is found. The characters found from the beginning of the substitution to its end, allowing for any recursion necessary to recognize embedded constructs, shall be included unmodified in the result token, including any embedded or enclosing substitution operators or quotes. The token shall not be delimited by the end of the substitution. Pretty much the same if you ask me. The only reason I (and others) usually quote the SuS instead of POSIX is because SuS is freely available on the web but POSIX is not, except that draft of course. > > I disagree. Since this behaviour is legal and IMHO the only sensible one, > > Given past experience in this Project, your opinion has frequently been > shown to be anything but sensible. Introducing epochs on kernel versions > because you were too shortsighted to give the pre-releases proper version > numbers in the first place, for instance, and then asserting that the > Packaging Manual has no force as Policy even as the policy-relevant > portions of it were being adopted as official Policy in order to defend > your user-unfriendly and gratuitous introduction of epochs is just one > example. You are entitled to hold your opinions, and so am I. > > I think that if you looked at my archived bugs, you would find that the > > most of the wishlist bugs have been fixed. > > Yes, either closed because you disagreed with the submitter and proceeded > to do nothing else about it, or fixed and the changes never submitted > upstream. If I disagreed with the submitter, then I had good reasons to do so. I always submit my patches after testing to the upstream when they are contactable. > > My opinion is that since the bug was a result of an undefined expression > > You have failed to cite the appropriate source for this assertion. The > issue is POSIX sh, not SuS sh. I believe the above quotation should resolve your doubts. > Please direct further replies to the Technical Committee; I am not > interested in hearing further self-serving justifications from you, and I'm > happy to await the technical committee's ruling. Glad to comply. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
