On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 01:52:48PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
"Dr. Werner Fink" <werner@suse.de> wrote:
Which software is free of bugs ... OK, the final TeX/Web from Donald E. Knuth. The only known I see is the the well defined bugs of the posh:
Legitimate bugs are inconsistencies between manpage and behavior, and inconsistencies between behavior and Debian policy (currently SUSv3 compliance with the following exceptions: echo -n, binary -a and -o to test, local scoping).
which is OK IMHO :)
Do you believe, software generally documents all it's bugs in the man page?
BTW: Even if you ignore the bugs related to e.g. "command" and shell arithmetik, posh is approx. 40% slower than pbosh or ksh93 and still 22% slower than bash if you use it to run "configure" fom gtar.
An important fact here is that posh does not have a builtin "printf".
As already said: it is a proof of concept if the build system can handle this. It can and even if installed in a regular system it works as long as the rpm does not include /usr/bin/sh in the file list. Beside this speed is not all (IMHO) ... yes ksh93 was/is fast, but the bug reports had been an annoying experience Werner -- "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr