On 2/27/13 5:42 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> I don't know what version you're using; I have 0.11.
>>
>> $ ./posh
>> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 1
>> ./posh: exit: bad number
>>
>> $ ./posh
>> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 10
>> ./posh: exit: bad number
>> $ echo $?
>> 1
>
> I am using
Chet Ramey wrote:
> I don't know what version you're using; I have 0.11.
>
> $ ./posh
> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 1
> ./posh: exit: bad number
>
> $ ./posh
> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 10
> ./posh: exit: bad number
> $ echo $?
> 1
I am using 0.11 too. I was using the Debian packaged version.
James Mason wrote:
> We considered setting up another shell as the implementation of
> "/bin/sh", but that's hazardous in the context of vast amounts of
> boot-time initialization scripting that hasn't been vetted as to
> avoidance of bash-isms.
You appear to be doing product QA. Awesome! Have y
On 02/27/2013 03:22 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> I don't know what version you're using; I have 0.11.
>
> $ ./posh
> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 1
> ./posh: exit: bad number
>
> $ ./posh
> \[\]${HOST}($SHLVL)\$ exit 10
> ./posh: exit: bad number
> $ echo $?
> 1
I tested with posh 0.10.2; looks like th
On 2/27/13 5:17 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Keep in mind that posh is overly strict in some areas (e.g., it throws
>> an error on `exit 1'). It may not be useful in isolation.
>
> As I did mention I have found that posh is somewhat less than useful
> in Real Life. But you say it
Chet Ramey wrote:
> Keep in mind that posh is overly strict in some areas (e.g., it throws
> an error on `exit 1'). It may not be useful in isolation.
As I did mention I have found that posh is somewhat less than useful
in Real Life. But you say it throws an error on exit 1?
$ cat >/tmp/trial
On 2/27/13 4:52 PM, John Kearney wrote:
> bash posix more just changes bash behaviour that is incompatible with
> the posix spec. Nothing more or less.
Correct. Limiting behavior to only what Posix specifies or warning
about extensions beyond the spec was not in scope.
Chet
--
``The lyf so sho
Am 27.02.2013 22:39, schrieb James Mason:
> On 02/27/2013 04:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> James Mason wrote:
I certainly could be doing something wrong, but it looks to me like
bash
- when in Posix mode - does not suppress the "-n" option for export.
The ver
On 2/27/13 4:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The posh shell was constructed specifically to be as strictly
> conforming to posix as possible. (Making it somewhat less than useful
> in Real Life but it may be what you are looking for.) It is Debian
> specific in origin but should work on other systems
On 02/27/2013 04:00 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
James Mason wrote:
I certainly could be doing something wrong, but it looks to me like bash
- when in Posix mode - does not suppress the "-n" option for export.
The version of bash that I'm looking at is 3.2.25.
So what? Putting bash
Eric Blake wrote:
> James Mason wrote:
> > I certainly could be doing something wrong, but it looks to me like bash
> > - when in Posix mode - does not suppress the "-n" option for export.
> > The version of bash that I'm looking at is 3.2.25.
>
> So what? Putting bash in posix mode does not re
On 02/27/2013 11:07 AM, James Mason wrote:
> I certainly could be doing something wrong, but it looks to me like bash
> - when in Posix mode - does not suppress the "-n" option for export.
> The version of bash that I'm looking at is 3.2.25.
So what? Putting bash in posix mode does not require
I certainly could be doing something wrong, but it looks to me like bash
- when in Posix mode - does not suppress the "-n" option for export.
The version of bash that I'm looking at is 3.2.25.
-jrm
13 matches
Mail list logo
