On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:03:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
And around and around we go. Dash itself say it is not suitable for
interactive use, and, bash is an Essential part of Debian.
Care to point me where dash says it is not suitable for interactive use?
the _Debian package_
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:22:06AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is an excellent example of doing the wrong thing, in my opinion.
Why not fix the bash bug instead??
Because it is _NOT_ a bug in bash, it is a feature. AFAIR (it was some
time ago I've looked at the code trying to fix
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 04:02:45PM +0100, Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:22:06AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
This is an excellent example of doing the wrong thing, in my opinion.
Why not fix the bash bug instead??
Because it is _NOT_ a bug in
On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 12:20:32PM -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it is _NOT_ a bug in bash, it is a feature. AFAIR (it was some
time ago I've looked at the code trying to fix this issue)
On 25 Nov 2006 10:02:14 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
My point. If there is explicit Depends: bash, then someone can
post a patch to provide alternative solution to a
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My point. If there is explicit Depends: bash, then someone can post
a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know
alternative constructs (having learned only
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My point. If there is explicit Depends: bash, then someone can post
a patch to provide alternative solution to a person
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And this is only possible if scripts use
/bin/sh
The /bin/sh could be any valid shell that provided the standard set
of features.
The installation system (Essential) which sets /bin/sh to point to
[Thomas Bushnell]
I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space
hog than bash.
Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to
umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #159771). Bash loads user
information using nss when it starts, and thus
Mike Hommey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And this is only possible if scripts use
/bin/sh
The /bin/sh could be any valid shell that provided the standard set
of features.
The installation system
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said:
Depends: make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is
usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include
bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Maybe bash should restrict its features when called sh... like gzip
changes its features when called gunzip, etc.
I think this would complicate the bash's C-code base unnecessarily.
The problem is not in the bash, but in the
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said:
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said:
Depends: make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is
usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include
bashism. He may offer
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
Because the
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:31 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Thomas Bushnell]
I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space
hog than bash.
Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to
umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #159771).
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:20:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Instead of focusing and hammering again and
[Thomas Bushnell]
Why not fix the bash bug instead??
Yes, I ask myself the same question. This bug was submitted as a bash
bug, and then passed on to the ldap library package by the bash
maintainer, and then passed back to bash and forwarded to upstream,
which never addressed it. No idea why
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 21:33 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
As I said, it is perfectly possible for a maintainer to write a script
which works on any shell and allows the user to pick at installation
time (heck, or even per-user!) which shell to use.
How cool that would be to be asked 1
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 04:04:39PM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce bash.
Those could be put to a stress test through:
It's also relatively trivial to just run through the archive, looking
for shell scripts and at least sh -n them from various
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:56 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:54 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
using the shell for interactive things is probably
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 11:10:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:56 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.
I think it's time to realize that
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
Because the correct is #!/bin/sh and not to be tied on particular shell.
I can't tell what you mean. There is nothing wrong
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:57 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
And why do you think that? please take a look at the RES values.
I know you don't understand it, because you just appealed to the RSS
values.
If many processes are sharing text, they all get accounted with the size
of the resident text in
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:54 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My point. If there is explicit Depends: bash, then someone can post
a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know
alternative constructs (having learned only bashism).
Sorry, but I don't understand what
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Somebody needs to explain to Jari the concept of a shared text segment.
Bash:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ grep 'Private_Dirty' /proc/$$/smaps | perl -e '$t = 0;
while () { /(\d+) kB$/ or die parse err: $_; $t += $1 } print tot: $t\n'
tot: 2800
Dash:
$ grep
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
Because the correct is #!/bin/sh and not to be tied on particular shell.
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit requirement
for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages need bash to make
them work. someone may then provide a patch to make bash go away.
* Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061123 06:56]:
But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh,
pdksh ..., if it uses those shells
Marvin Renich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [061123 06:56]:
But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash,
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
make bash go away. I suggest removing the
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
are written with only sh in
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the reduced memory
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:16:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
Comparing bash from woody and sid, respectively:
-rwxr-xr-x root/root511400 2002-04-08 21:07
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
Comparing bash from
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB. No woody to compare with.
dash in woody was still called ash.
Cheers,
--
Bill.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB. No woody to
On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
are written with only
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[snip]
There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
/bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
to work with some generic shell. The former is going to be *much*
easier.
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
consumption a problem when compared to
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
policy should take the shells as special case, because the
sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
no viable alternative implementation of
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[snip]
There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
/bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
to work with
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
policy should take the shells as special case, because the
sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
Some prefer bash and see no
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ, I'm CC'ing - please tell if you'd rather read the list.
I read the list (both of them); no need to cc.
I agree. Your suggestion solves this for all parties. The policy stays
intact, but the underlying dependencies need an improvement. The problem
I
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:56:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
Well, be honest. Have you ever used any
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
/bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
to work with some generic shell. The
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[snip]
There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
/bin/bash if they need bash
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck. Basically,
you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk, where it's not
explicitly essential and can be handled by something akin to
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
using the shell for interactive things is probably not a big deal,
personally I'd never use dash, posh, or
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
Most hardware that was nice and shiny back in 2002 wasn't exactly
underpowered, seeing as the Pentium 4 and Athlon Palomino was what was
used back then. So, I kind of doubt that the statement was concerning
Woody. Try Potato or
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them work.
On 23 Nov 2006 01:15:28 +0200, Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
make bash go away. I suggest removing
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
where it's not explicitly essential and can be handled by something
akin to
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
where it's not explicitly essential and
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, here's try number two. I tried to incorporate the feedback from
various people. Please critique.
--- debian-policy-3.7.2.2/policy.sgml 2006-10-02 15:36:50.0 -0700
+++ /home/eagle/dvl/policy/policy.sgml2006-11-20
Jari Aalto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit requirement
for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages need bash to make
them work. someone may then provide a patch to make bash go away.
This would conflict with Policy 3.5, which says
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
I would drop that special case and always require explicit
requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
need bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
make bash go away. I suggest removing the
Russ
Okay, here's try number two. I tried to incorporate the feedback from
various people. Please critique.
Other than wanting the 'echo -n' and -a/-o bits to go away, I think this
looks pretty good.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:35:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
Ok, so this means
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am of two mind with that. On the positive side it removes the promise
to the users that the system works with _any_ POSIX-compliant /bin/sh, which
is something we never actively tested.
On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think, as Andi said earlier, we have come to a rough
consensus here. Or close enough, for me. Russ, please go ahead and
create the new version of the patch for your proposal, as you
mentioned in your mail with
Message-ID: [EMAIL
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
Not exactly a minimum. For example, posh implements a POSIX pwd
builtin. If it were
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:57 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
Not exactly a minimum. For
Why not ls?
Judging by the lack of wishlist bugs requesting it and my
own feeling of revulsion at the idea, I'd say that it's because
no one wants it.
A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
such a shell,
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:15 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
such a shell, nor to be particularly useful interactively.
Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
than just /bin/bash.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
than just /bin/bash.
So can we just decide what the
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 05:57]:
,
| Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
| features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also,
| they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions,
| as long as If
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 10:37]:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:50:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:14 -0800, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would rather get away from this wording totally.
,
| Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
| features,
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
actual list should be given? Saying works on a Posix compatible shell
restricts way too much (you can't use debconf then) unless we wink and
Could you just stop
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:36:47 +0100, Bill Allombert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is
/bin/bash (because /bin/sh is not a config file, and baring policy
authorization, users are not supposed to change symlinks in
/bin).
No. Debian
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:06:15 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
AFAICT, /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
shell does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better
to state that, `only POSIX
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
AFAICT, /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
shell does not really convey what Debian
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a
POSIX (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
understood that the shells in question do not have grave bugs.
I know what Posix.2 says, but
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can
come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf. I
suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a
bug in the shell. Policy is
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Debian Technical policy is applicable to Debian systems. A
POSIX shell, in this context, lives on a Debian OS. I the shell
overrides debconf in an incompatible manner, that would break things,
and would be a grave bug.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a POSIX
(+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
understood that the
I know what Posix.2 says, but it does not define the term POSIX
compatible shell. Can you tell me what that means? I really am
genuinely stymied. I think some people have an incorrect
understanding of what POSIX actually says in this regard, but I'm
not sure.
If you truly
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:22:32 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
POSIX does not distinguish at all between the status of echo, ls,
and test. It puts them in the same section, talks about them in the
same terms, and so forth. In no way does POSIX say or imply that
the
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
Ok, so this means something like the following would be good for policy:
When POSIX specifies a
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
actual list should be given? Saying works on a Posix compatible shell
restricts way too much (you
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
actual list should be given? Saying works on
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 07:31]:
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The problem sparking this thread and my initial work on a Policy patch is
not a problem caused by shells with builtins; it is, in fact, not a
technical problem at all in the
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:13:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
I do. Debian test is provided by the coreutils package. As the man
page says:
( EXPRESSION )
EXPRESSION is true
And, we have the existing rule in section 10.1 of the policy manual:
Two different
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
