* Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060605 13:41]:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 12:38:23PM +0200, you wrote:
> >Hm, seems that I missed that posix now requires us to not allow +n
> >anymore. When was that added?
> The 2001 version finally removed the +n form, which was marked as
> obsolescent for a long time prior to that.
Well, as far as I know rules there are three cases:
1. "You must do foo"
2. "You must not do foo"
3. no regulation about foo
For tool implementors, 3. is no rule. For tool users, 3. means that you
cannot rely on foo being done or not if your tools by that standard;
they might however do so because they follow different standards / are
backwards-compatible / ...
Up to now, I was under the impression that the +n-syntax falls in posix
under case 3.
However, if you discuss with upstream authors about stopping to use +n
in scripts, they usually say that this is a non-option for them, as they
cannot give up on the old non-posix compatible systems. For debian, it
is of course way easier - but then you have a (even if small) patch to
maintain, which puts additional maintainer costs on you for very small
value. (I'm not argueing about maintainer scripts - they should be
posix of course, as there is no upstream.)
So, the question is, what do we gain on either way:
- remove +n-syntax:
- reduces code base;
- no need to maintain extra patch to keep +n (unless we can convince
upstream also :)
- keep +n-syntax:
- no need to maintain extra patches relative to upstream in lots of
packages;
- old shell scripts still run; [1]
Of course, if you prefer that I discuss this with upstream, I could do
that. However, I believe that the proper way to deal with requests is to
discuss that with the Debian maintainer(s), and only if they tell
someone to speak with upstream, do it.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
