On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief. > >> > > >> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in > >> > Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is > >> > inconsistent with the Debian versions. > > As far as I can tell, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[ are completely > useless, because none of bash, dash, posh, or zsh use them. Maybe pdksh > does, but that's pretty much the list of shells that could be coerced > into being /bin/sh. I propose we remove those executables from > coreutils if it turns out that they are never executed.
There are many cases where one may well want the test program. We need them regardless. > >The only builtin which we identified needed to be on that list was test > >itself, and the problem here was that the deviations in posh's > >implementation of test would pose serious problems. > > The standard posh follows is Debian Policy. If you change Policy, I am > pretty sure that posh will follow[0]. Policy currently specifies a set > of features that are required above and beyond minimal POSIX standards > (echo -n). I don't know what the particular issue is with posh. It was brought up as an example in the policy discussion a while ago. > I don't see what your problem is with posh. It serves a legitimate > purpose: providing the bare minimum required by Policy. It's useful as > a test of Policy-compliance, and not much more, which is fine. I don't have a problem with posh. It was brought up in the policy discussion the last time. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]