Re: Proposal: set -o pipefail

[Stephen Oberholtzer <stevie@xxxxxxxxx>]

Okay, if I'm understanding this correctly, pipefail was actually
accepted? Is that correct?
Would that imply that a patch to implement it would be accepted
(pending quality)?

On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 3:29 PM Dan Kegel <dank@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> See http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=789
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:27 PM Stephen Oberholtzer <stevie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> (NOTE: not subscribed to list, so be sure to CC me)
>>
>> I did my first foray into shell scripting for task automation on
>> Debian earlier this week, and one of the things I discovered is that
>> 'pipefail' is apparently not available from dash, which provides
>> Debian's /bin/sh.
>>
>> When I looked at what I would need to write to work around this
>> limitation, I instead wrote a patch for Dash to add support for
>> pipefail. This took less time (and, arguably, required less code.)
>>
>> However, when searching the mailing list archives for anything related
>> to such functionality, I discovered that "Only features designated by
>> POSIX, plus a few Berkeley extensions, are being incorporated into
>> this shell."
>>
>> As a result, I have two questions:
>>
>> (1) Would Dash be willing to support this extension? (I'll even call
>> myself Berkely if it'll make it happen.)
>>
>> (2) If it absolutely, positively has to be available in POSIX, how can
>> I submit a proposal for the inclusion of 'pipefail' as an option?
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Oberholtzer
>>


-- 
-- Stevie-O
Real programmers use COPY CON PROGRAM.EXE