On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 19:28 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:39:07PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > It's not guaranteed to work in any shell implementing POSIX without > > extensions, which is what Policy says you're allowed to rely on (well, > > plus a few extensions, but not including trap and kill with signal > > numbers). > > Right. But what does this mean in terms of our Lenny release goal "dash as > sh" which essantially was what I meant to ask.
I'd assume it doesn't make any difference in terms of that release goal as (as you noted) dash supports the syntax. > > It's safe for use with dash, but using it is technically a violation of > > Policy (albeit a widespread one). There is a Policy bug open requesting > > that the XSI extensions for trap and kill be permitted (#477240). > >From this I'd say for Lenny using trap with a signal number is fine. As fine as it was for etch :-) > Also they same question comes up with the "local" keyword. Dash seems to > support this, while it is not POSIX. Policy contains an explicit exemption for "local", although it places several restrictions on exactly how the keyword may be used. Again, if dash supports the syntax then the "dash as sh" release goal is achievable without changing the code; whether that code is Policy compliant is another matter. Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
