On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:25:13 +0200 Christoph Anton Mitterer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi. > > In general I'd say: > > - Whenever no specific shell is required (e.g. to run scripts or so) > use a wording like "shell" or "default shell", depending on whether > any shell or the system’s default shell is meant. Seems reasonable. > - For everything else however, which especially refers to /bin/sh, we > should ONLY use/allow/define POSIX sh compatible shells, which conform > to the POSIX "Shell Command Language". I've copied in mats comment from bugzilla [1] on this subject. > I guess both must be named "POSIX sh compatible" AND POSIX "Shell > Command Language", as sh defines things like some sh parameters and > stuff, which is not defined by the Shell Command Laguage. I wasn't aware of that, i'll have to see if it makes sense to edit the text to include both terms. > Concentrating on any specific shell, Bourne, bash, or whatever is > problematic in many ways. > It can happen that they're not longer maintained (bourne?), they're > typically non-standardised, etc. pp. Agreed. Thats why I've tried to remove them from the new text. --- Comment #12 from Mats Wichmann <[email protected]> 2011-07-19 23:08:39 EST --- > As Karl asked for comments, I think the > patch is "generally" okay. I continue to maintain that we don't want > to get into compliance issues - every few weeks there's a new request > for interpretation on the Austin Group (POSIX) list about how some > shell or another does A while another does B - which did POSIX > actually intend? So I'm leary of wording that seems to require any > kind of strict conformance, or to any particular edition. Since FHS > is about where things are, not about how they work, I'm still unclear > on what wording would make me most comfortable. If this doesn't > bother anyone else, we could just go ahead. I was deliberately trying to palm off the compliance part to posix. I agree we don't want to be trying to decide what can live at /bin/sh, but we do need to somehow indicate bourne compatible. thanks, kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fhs-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fhs-discuss
