Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
Hi Ralf, > Could you please provide a pointer to the start of this thread? https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2020-January/029795.html As Eli pointed out, it started on another list to which I can subscribe, but not post. On attempting to post, the auto-reply suggests using arch-general if it's thought important enough, so I did. Another time, I'll make clear it's a carry-over from a different list to avoid confusion for those not reading both. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:33:19 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >Who said anything about System V init? Why would System V init be >needed for portability? Running startup scripts by using run levels isn't that uncommon outside of Linux.
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 18:33:19 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >The thread started on arch-dev-public; replies on arch-general occurred >when members of the community wished to discuss the matter as well. >Hope that helps. :) Hi Eli, yes, it's helpful ;). Regards, Ralf PS: I prefer bash regarding comfort over e.g. GUI file managers when using command line instead of a GUI file manager, but I sometimes prefer dash to e.g. get faster results when using scripts. One or the other FreeBSD pen pal of mine has got mixed feelings regarding Linux at all, especially regarding the most used init system and much used shells. They probably have just more than "a" point ;).
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On 1/4/20 9:56 AM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote: > On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 12:41:26 +, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >> Arch users may be producing code for non-Arch, non-Linux, systems. > > Happy New Year! > > Pff! Bash is the most used login shell for Linux for good reasons. > Sometimes I like it faster, hence I like to use dash, sometimes I like > portability to at least FreeBSD, if so I care about this, too. > > Linux isn't POSIX, period! Sure, bash adds lots of interesting things on top of POSIX, but the reason it is so popular is in large part because it implements the POSIX baseline. Also, it is the most-used login shell, not the most-used script shell. It is very popular as a script shell too, but /bin/sh is also a very popular script shell, explicitly for portability across operating systems. > Let alone that Unix System V-style initialization has nothing in common > with systemd based Linux distros, something that is as important > regarding portability, as POSIX is. Who said anything about System V init? Why would System V init be needed for portability? > Btw. I didn't receive the complete thread, while I received all other > threads from other and this list completely, or maybe I received the > complete thread, if so, somebody likely has broken the thread and the > subject, too. When and where did this thread start? > > I only can see the three mails I received and no additional mail here: > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2020-January/date.html > > I can _not_ find a subject "Adding a "posix" metapackage" in the > December, November, October or September archive, too. > > Actually I wasn't interested to reply at all, I'm just curious about > information related to POSIX vs Linux, IOW I'm interested in learning > by reading, but it's a broken thread. > > Could you please provide a pointer to the start of this thread? The thread started on arch-dev-public; replies on arch-general occurred when members of the community wished to discuss the matter as well. Hope that helps. :) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
Le samedi 4 janvier 2020 16:50:24 CET Neven Sajko via arch-general a écrit : > http://www.etalabs.net/sh_tricks.html Thank you very much. Your 'echo' insight and fundamentals highlight differences between professionals and amateurs like me !
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 15:50:24 +, Neven Sajko wrote: >http://www.etalabs.net/sh_tricks.html Thank you :)!
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
> Actually I wasn't interested to reply at all, I'm just curious about > information related to POSIX vs Linux, IOW I'm interested in learning > by reading, but it's a broken thread. Maybe you would like this: https://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html http://www.etalabs.net/sh_tricks.html
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
> Linux isn't POSIX, period! I think Linux and its userspace (musl and glibc) try the hardest to be POSIX. Don't they get the first implementations of new POSIX APIs, compared to Darwin or the BSDs?
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 12:41:26 +, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >Arch users may be producing code for non-Arch, non-Linux, systems. Happy New Year! Pff! Bash is the most used login shell for Linux for good reasons. Sometimes I like it faster, hence I like to use dash, sometimes I like portability to at least FreeBSD, if so I care about this, too. Linux isn't POSIX, period! Let alone that Unix System V-style initialization has nothing in common with systemd based Linux distros, something that is as important regarding portability, as POSIX is. Btw. I didn't receive the complete thread, while I received all other threads from other and this list completely, or maybe I received the complete thread, if so, somebody likely has broken the thread and the subject, too. When and where did this thread start? I only can see the three mails I received and no additional mail here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2020-January/date.html I can _not_ find a subject "Adding a "posix" metapackage" in the December, November, October or September archive, too. Actually I wasn't interested to reply at all, I'm just curious about information related to POSIX vs Linux, IOW I'm interested in learning by reading, but it's a broken thread. Could you please provide a pointer to the start of this thread? Regards, Ralf
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
Hi Seblu, > Our scripts are not written POSIX compatible (i.e they rely on more > tools than the standard). Do you still know people writing POSIX > compatible scripts nowadays (students excluded)? Yes, lots of projects that target Unix systems, not just Linux, stick to POSIX for their build scripts, particularly tests. GNU groff and nmh are two I regularly see up close. > I'm not able to tell you something in Arch that rely on POSIX.2 (Shell > and Utilities). What make you think people care about this standard? Arch users may be producing code for non-Arch, non-Linux, systems. -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
On 1/3/20 10:49 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Hi Santiago, > >> I'm curious, though, are there any specifics about the providers on >> these POSIX tools/libraries/whatnot (i.e., would it be wortwhile >> discussing the alternatives?). > > Is sh being provided by bash(1)? A more POSIX-compliant shell may be > better, one that doesn't let lots of bashisms pass without complaint. > dash(1)? And dash doesn't have time as a built-in, so we get to pull in > an executable for that too. Currently, sh is provided exclusively by bash, though ksh, zsh, mksh and busybox also provide a "time" builtin. I guess it would be reasonable to uncomment it. > As for SCCS, it's a handy file format. Better in design that RCS's. > And used by other tools over the years, e.g. Bitkeeper, so they do > linger on. Plus it's a historical file format, just as ncompress was > sought to be more POSIX compliant. But ncompress is simple to package and generally useful -- it can even be used by makepkg for extremely fast compression (albeit not as compressible as gzip or other recent formats). SCCS would require me to actually package it! So I need to decide if I'm interested in the effort that would take, for an XSI option. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] Adding a "posix" metapackage
Hi Santiago, > I'm curious, though, are there any specifics about the providers on > these POSIX tools/libraries/whatnot (i.e., would it be wortwhile > discussing the alternatives?). Is sh being provided by bash(1)? A more POSIX-compliant shell may be better, one that doesn't let lots of bashisms pass without complaint. dash(1)? And dash doesn't have time as a built-in, so we get to pull in an executable for that too. As for SCCS, it's a handy file format. Better in design that RCS's. And used by other tools over the years, e.g. Bitkeeper, so they do linger on. Plus it's a historical file format, just as ncompress was sought to be more POSIX compliant. -- Cheers, Ralph.
