From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ip8UI-0006oP-JH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:23:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lA5KN6Js002989; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:23:06 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lA5KL9IR000579 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:21:09 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760D96433A for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:21:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] POSIX shell and "portable" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 16:21:07 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <472B29B9.50002@gentoo.org> <1194257626.4196.9.camel@uberlaptop.marples.name> <1194268910.6977.86.camel@sapc154> In-Reply-To: <1194268910.6977.86.camel@sapc154> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1496509.BdSY24WVXR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200711051521.07840.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 57e9b18d-3372-40c6-95e6-e38809649fcb X-Archives-Hash: 91842f90f45e0b5bbfcd98e2d7290765 --nextPart1496509.BdSY24WVXR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 05 November 2007, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:13 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > While I still have access to the u@g.o email, I'll respond here. > > > > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:22 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-11-03 at 00:47 +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > > > > > As it seems too few people really accept your suggestion, I feel it's > > > time for me to chime in too, although I don't know what exactly > > > POSIX-sh standard defines. > > > > > > Agreed, but (speaking for alt/prefix): > > > > > > Alt/prefix is designed to (mainly) work without superuser access on t= he > > > target machine, which may also be Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and the like. > > > /bin/sh on such a machine is not POSIX-shell, but old bourne-shell > > > (unfortunately with bugs often). > > > And it is _impossible_ to have sysadmins to get /bin/sh a POSIX-Shell > > > nor to have that bugs fixed. > > > > > > But yes, on most machines there is /bin/ksh, which IMHO is POSIX > > > compliant (maybe also with non-fixable bugs). > > > > > > Although I do not know yet for which _installed_ scripts it'd be real= ly > > > useful to have them non-bash in alt/prefix, I appreciate the > > > discussion. > > > > > > To see benefits for alt/prefix too, it _might_ require that discussion > > > going from requiring /bin/sh being POSIX-sh towards being > > > bourne-shell... > > > > Actually you missed the mark completely. > > Nothing in the tree itself specifies what shell to use - instead it's > > the package manager. So the PM on Gentoo/Linux/FreeBSD *could* > > be /bin/sh and on the systems where /bin/sh is not possible to change to > > a POSIX compliant shell then it can still use /bin/bash or wherever it's > > installed. > > So "have the installed scripts to not require bash" is another topic ? yes, and generally that's a baked topic. if your script is /bin/sh, then i= t=20 must be POSIX compliant. if your script is /bin/bash, then you're encourag= ed=20 to convert it to POSIX /bin/sh. but this is because the *runtime*=20 environment is generally a lot more restricted than that of the *buildtime*= =20 environment. runtime implies a lot leaner requirements (think binary-only= =20 systems, embedded systems, production systems, etc...) than that of a=20 development system (which requires everything in order to compile). > Ok then: > Given that we want to have the tree "more generic unix-able": > What is the benefit from having the tree being POSIX- but not > bourne-shell compatible, so one still needs bash on Solaris/AIX/HP-UX ? > Because I'd say those three are the biggest substitutes for "unix", > while I'd call *BSD and Linux just "unix derivates" (although with > enhancements)... we want the installed environment to be portable, not the build environment= =2E =20 i do not see any benefit from forcing the build environment to be pure POSI= X=20 compliant and i see many many detrimental problems. =2Dmike --nextPart1496509.BdSY24WVXR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARy97M0FjO5/oN/WBAQK30A/+JCAmqYOwRjeMscs//ove1kH4ozzDQV7B Aw06fJzoGPwsIPhUPetpaflU36hYN1ehV9LnGY0GFtc4tO5OEhvkGRODHK3EWR3f O516JnUqpNjhWZAma9BB9uwIns2NDihkZ0BZa3lOJcsFb91GSH6ZAvJsRVdbe5W1 wP+rhzW8sCyjbAxGmFtCqpMWdDtNwAyi0PKgm128vCbXf7gZrexrG6sMF4ylWvl4 pt06hz6vMEVwCMy2tWXoxIHbFpo4pVBBAPIVOvQ9JMbpzx7HwaPoqFOQslrx+6nQ B7MIKvw7knl196wZ7vgMN/daXrptFjPiZuMatdsnqF2SHn/tDksjE3nLlyIO2SXH UEPFm69+Ie+5lqEHuhuPK4059dqEuApCUMmnIftUodiub5ciD15XDmg+J7RVt1V8 qF8SwEnidsYgU96lKq0/6O5+VOFiWxz49JFZfYEWhTCCttCm+HMu6TQu7j2CS0L7 R8dwA+46BlxLrn945Z9UsTigiEZ3ujX6FOc88ahz5vRWFbyw1Rx6elvkO1LCcsii f8OAdU9AnwrL9OOHUEfFRlbhCbCoA6ZGDJLM9bsNERc6pqxryfFM16pIs7gz5F4U 4Gb9Wqkjq8l+kn58/FR/jvw2mEyC5I5mbwNp8Mhc6R394FnvU6mtCdYyRThu8U6z YaVQikK4eHk= =AHa0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1496509.BdSY24WVXR-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list