Re: test vs. [ [was: Bash script problem]

From	<tomas@tuxteam.de>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: test vs. [ [was: Bash script problem]
Date	2021-08-05 15:00 +0200
Message-ID	<CIL8B-3n6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <CICyl-6yN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <CIGBX-Lf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <CIJzP-2Cb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <CIKcx-2Ph-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <CIKPf-3gC-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 08:32:39AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 01:59:06PM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 07:19:11AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > The external versions of test and [ need to exist for POSIX conformance,
> > > and also so that you can -exec them from find(1) or other similar
> > > programs.
> > 
> > I see. Do we still (seriously) care about POSIX (don't get me wrong: I'd
> > strongly prefer a world where we did!).
> 
> Depends on who you mean by "we".

:-)

>                                  There are a bunch of people who do
> care, and a bunch of people who don't.

Yes, and I see that as a problem.

> I'd say the Debian developers who package things like coreutils care,
> at least to a certain degree.  They won't go to extreme lengths to be
> POSIX compatible, but they'll mostly try to do so if it doesn't break
> anything or cause an unreasonable burden.

[...]

> I can't say which decision is the better one.

I think this "soft POSIX compliance" might kill POSIX in the long run.
Since everyone feels free to route around his/her personal pain points,
there's little collective motivation to actually /fix/ them, and it
might drift slowly into irrelevance.

Now I'm not a 100% fan of POSIX /per se/ but I see the value in
written standards. Standards processes can seem at times clumsy, but
they force people to think about interfaces and specifications.

Otherwise it's what we have now with WHATWG's HTML5 "living standard",
which will end up with "whatever Google implements". Not much better,
in my eyes, than the bad old times of Microsoft dominance.

Cheers
 - t

Thread

Bash script problem "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:00 +0200
  Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 02:10 +0200
    Re: Bash script problem "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 05:50 +0200
      Re: Bash script problem john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2021-08-05 09:00 +0200
      Re: Bash script problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-05 10:10 +0200
        Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 13:20 +0200
          test vs. [ [was: Bash script problem] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-05 14:00 +0200
            Re: test vs. [ [was: Bash script problem] Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 14:40 +0200
              Re: test vs. [ [was: Bash script problem] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-05 15:00 +0200
      Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 14:30 +0200
  Re: Bash script problem Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-08-05 09:40 +0200
    Re: Bash script problem Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-08-05 10:30 +0200
      Re: Bash script problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-05 10:40 +0200
        Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 14:00 +0200
          Re: Bash script problem "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 22:10 +0200
            Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-05 22:20 +0200
              Re: Bash script problem "Gary L. Roach" <garyroach719@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 17:00 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-06 17:10 +0200
            Re: Bash script problem David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 01:40 +0200
              Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-06 02:10 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-06 02:20 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-06 02:30 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-08-06 03:50 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-06 04:10 +0200
              Re: Bash script problem Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-06 02:10 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2021-08-06 02:30 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Christian Groessler <chris@groessler.org> - 2021-08-06 03:00 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-06 03:10 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 03:10 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 03:00 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-06 09:00 +0200
              Re: Bash script problem David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-08-06 05:10 +0200
                Re: Bash script problem David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 05:50 +0200
              Re: Bash script problem Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2021-08-06 09:20 +0200
  Re: Bash script problem Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2021-08-06 01:00 +0200

csiph-web