From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:06:41 +0200
From: tlaronde@polynum.com
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20120828160641.GA2390@polynum.com>
References: <20120828141332.GA10058@intma.in>
	<6af219d70f9551dee8d013e5c34a255f@proxima.alt.za>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6af219d70f9551dee8d013e5c34a255f@proxima.alt.za>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b1655edc-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
>
> Do you think you can provide any guarantees that the subset of /bin/sh
> features common to all current instances of /bin/sh is adequate to
> build a moderately demanding open source package?
>

Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX. The minimal being a subset of POSIX.2 for the tools,
since it is trivial to provide such subset for whatever environment (APE
on Plan9; this is what does Mingw for Windows; Cygwin is the overloaded
version; R.I.S.K. will probably provide one in the future).

--
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                      http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C