| 1 |
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:04:59 +0000 Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:58:52 +0000 |
| 4 |
| Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 5 |
| > | Right, and bash arrays are not shell |
| 6 |
| > | http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm |
| 7 |
| > |
| 8 |
| > Sure they're shell. They're just not POSIX. |
| 9 |
| |
| 10 |
| Maybe I should have been more clear. |
| 11 |
| |
| 12 |
| Anything in /etc/conf.d/ should be able to be read by a POSIX |
| 13 |
| compliant shell. This means no arrays. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various features |
| 16 |
beyond what POSIX specifies? Granted, choice of shell is good, but not |
| 17 |
if it's at the expense of functionality or ease of use. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 21 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 22 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 23 |
Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
Archives