Re: Bug#906250: ITP: execline -- small and non-interactive scripting language
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 11:04:16 +0200
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#906250: ITP: execline -- small and non-interactive scripting language
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 10:17:09AM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Shengjing Zhu <zhsj@xxxxxxxxxx>, 2018-09-02, 14:42:
> > When I try to package execline(a non-interactive shell script), it
> > installs following binaries in default PATH,
> > cd, if, exec, wait, ....
> Three of them (cd, umask, wait) clash with shell's regular built-in
> utilities. [...] The execline's implementation are of course not compatible
> with POSIX, and therefore must not be included within PATH.
And with the Policy, too:
# Two different packages must not install programs with different
# functionality but with the same filenames. (The case of two programs
# having the same functionality but different implementations is handled via
# “alternatives” or the “Conflicts” mechanism.
Regular "cd" changes the directory for the calling process (thus it even
can't possibly be a separate process), this "cd" takes two arguments and
runs a _child_ with the changed directory.
So having execline in $PATH conflicts not only with POSIX, common sense,
but even our Policy. :þ
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal [Mt3:16-17]
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs [Mt14:17-20, Mt15:34-37]
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water [Mt14:25-26]