Re: smarter makes

[Tom Christiansen <tchrist@jhereg.perl.com>]

>Wrong.  A lot of systems will not have sh, but may have something like
>pdksh etc.

It's hardly my fault of you aren't POSIX conformant.  Just because you
can't please all the people all the time doesn't mean you shouldn't
try to please most of the people most of the time.  And irrespective of
what incarnation, if there exists an sh-compatible shell, it *should*
be invocable using the canonical command "sh".  Don't argue with me
about "should", Ilya, or about conformance.  I really have no interest
in citing 1003.2 chapter and verse to you.

>> Sure, those others exist, but there
>> is certainly a link from sh if one of them is standing in for sh.

>You are confused.  Look at the possible output from Configure about
>running Configure on a different shell interpreter.

Oh, I don't think I'm that confused.  See above.  I think you're 
just sensitive because you're enamoured of a system that doesn't
pass muster with either dot 1 or dot 2.  

Fine: so maybe I'm overreaching, and yours really does conform to the
standard.  That doesn't change the issue.  Please endeavour to avoid
inciting indendiary devices about matters of negligible import.  If you
really feel like arguing, please choose something that matters next time.

--tom

---

Follow-Ups from:

Ilya Zakharevich <ilya@math.ohio-state.edu>

References to:

Ilya Zakharevich <ilya@math.ohio-state.edu>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---