On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:06:24PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > Let me state once again, this has no bearing whatsoever over the proposed > > > change in policy and my question about whether escape codes/-e are to be > > > mentioned or not. It is for purely pendantic value.
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 08:09:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > I think it's an important point, because getting it wrong would have > > all sorts of nasty implications. On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 10:11:50AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > But do you agree that with your current proposal, you still have to fix all > scripts that use -e/escape codes? Like I said before, I don't think this issue is relevant to debian policy. People can fix them, or not, depending on circumstances. > > Not precisely -- it means that there are no options required > > by POSIX. > > > > If we went with your interpretation, it would violate POSIX to > > provide any options for a command which weren't present in the > > POSIX synopsis. > > I would agree with you on this point for anything but echo. I don't think > this reasoning applies here given what's in the Operands section and what > the rationale is. It seems to be clear to me that the intention was to not > allow any options, i.e., to make sure that all implementations of echo echo > all of its arguments unless the first operand was -n. I would agree with you on this point except that's not what POSIX says. -- Raul
