On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 11:11 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 1/3/20 10:48 AM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 23:35 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
...
Thoughts?
I would argue that POSIX is a standard which people actually care about, and LSB is a standard which no one cares about.
I agree that few people are interested in LSB. I think it's barely the same for POSIX. Our scripts are not written POSIX compatible (i.e they rely on more tools than the standard). Do you still know people writing POSIX compatible scripts nowadays (students excluded)? The GNU Operating System (our core rely on it) have disagreements with POSIX and are de-facto non-POSIX (e.g df). I'm not able to tell you something in Arch that rely on POSIX.2 (Shell and Utilities). What make you think people care about this standard? I'm not opposed to add a posix metapackage. I'm just very reserved about its usefulness. One unfortunate consequence could be to have packages rely on it to make dependencies shorter, and make us pull cups or cronie. Cheers, Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer