> > i believe the following is not fully /bin/sh compliant (it fails to work > > with "posh"): > I do not care about posh, you should spend your time in more useful ways.
you should actually show a little respect for the users of the software you package. don't get so defensive- it's not any better use of anyone's time. i just figured i could spend a small amount of my time to file a few simple patches. most maintainers tend to appreciate that. for the sake of completeness: > All my packages work with dash, which is a reasonable small shell. size is not really the issue, but policy compliance... > There is no sensible reason for supporting posh. "posh is a stripped-down version of pdksh that aims for compliance with Debian's policy, and few extra features." i believe the policy they are talking about, is 10.4 from debian-policy 3.6.1.1: "shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should only use POSIX features." the -a and -o option are not POSIX features as far as i'm aware, but XSI:isms. many, many other debian packages have fixed this issue; at least 256 of the packages installed on my system mention fixing XSI:isms in their changelogs (see the changelogs of gnupg, linux-kernel-headers, xfree86... to name a few). but whatever. it's not a huge deal. leave it as wontfix. it's a small bug. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
