[fhs-discuss] minor issues

[Christoph Anton Mitterer]

On Wed, 18 May 2011 09:38:26 +1000, Karl Goetz <karl at kgoetz.id.au> wrote:
> It says:
>> The following commands, or symbolic links to commands, are required
>> in /bin.
> [...]
>> sh       The Bourne command shell
> [...]
>> If /bin/sh is not a true Bourne shell, it must be a hard or symbolic
>> link to the real shell command.

We definitely should change this IMHO,... is the true Bourne shell still
maintained at all? Is it open sourced?
I guess the best is it, if we define sh to be the POSIX /bin/sh and
conforming to the POSIX "Shell Command Language".
See the links I've included in one of my previous emails.



>>     The requirement for the [ and test commands to be included as
>> binaries (even if implemented internally by the shell) is shared with
>> the POSIX.2 standard.
> 
> I guess we could add printf next to [ in that entry?

I personally would require all these utilities to be (at least) POISX
compatible.
Of course the real world looks different in that thes programs (typically
the GNU versions) have much more functionality.
But GNU is not a standard, it's just one implementation,... and if we say
POSIX compatible in the meaning that this is at leas supported,.. we can
still have extensions.


>> But this would already open up the abuse from applications as the CG
>> stuff I've mentioned before.
> 
> key word here is abuse - i don't believe they'll stop abusing it just
> because we explicitly say they should. 
probably,... well.. for some of them it might have been just a matter of
not knowing...


>> > We can't know which filesystems this is in advance.
>> That's why I say,.. put it completely in the hands of the distros.
> 
> Hm, not sure about this - same with your printf above - what about had
> coded paths?

Well... scripts having this hardcoded must be fixed then of course,...
either by using their distro specific location,.. or by setting a general
PATH.


Chris.