[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: loadables/rm not POSIX compliant

From: Tim Rühsen
Subject: Re: loadables/rm not POSIX compliant
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 12:53:06 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0

On 5/28/19 6:04 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2019-05-28T17:01:52+0200, Tim Rühsen wrote:
>> Since distributions like Debian doesn't deliver binaries from
>> examples/,
> That doesn't sound accurate to me.  The Debian Policy Manual, §12.6,
> encourages the shipping of examples:
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#examples
> In fact, the bash-doc package contains dozens of examples.  However, I
> don't see anything named "rm".  (I'm looking at bash-doc 5.0-4 in Debian
> 10, "buster".)

That package does not contain examples/loadables. But there is a package
'bash-builtins' which doesn't contain 'rm' and 'cat' either.

Opening a new bug report via 'reportbug' seems to trigger another Debian
bug. You can see the bug entry at
(#929702), but clicking on it gives "There is no record of Bug #929702".
That makes me feel sick.

Also, I opened a similar bug at Debian years ago - but it's not on the
list of bash or bash-builtins any more. Seems like bugs become removed
or are "lost" somehow sometimes. No idea what happened.

Thanks for motivating me to create a (/another) bug for this issue.

Regards, Tim

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]