Re: standards/42828: Almquist shell always evaluates the contents of ${ENV} even if non-interactive

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR standards/42828; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
To: Richard Hansen <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost>
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, standards-manager%NetBSD.org@localhost,
        netbsd-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: standards/42828: Almquist shell always evaluates the contents of 
${ENV} even if non-interactive
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:53:25 +0700

     Date:        Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:14:07 -0500
     From:        Richard Hansen <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost>
     Message-ID:  <4B7CE8BF.3020401%bbn.com@localhost>
 
   | I agree that the POSIX design is suboptimal, but at this point there is 
   | greater value in being compatible than in being right.
 
 In some cases I might agree, in this one, I don't.
 
   | Cross-platform scripts can't rely on NetBSD's nonstandard behavior,
 
 One of us is confused about what $ENV is for?   What scripts are ever going to
 set that (clear(unset) it perhaps, but set it?)   Particularly the way you
 expect it to work - where it applies only to interactive shells, which isn't
 something many scripts ever care about.
 
 Do you have a real example of something that breaks (other than a conformance 
 test) because of this?   That is, excluding user environments, we know they're
 different.
 
   | It would be unfortunate if an ordinary script ran everywhere except NetBSD.
 
 Yes, but there are thousands of scripts around, the only problems I have ever
 seen reported relate to scripts that use non-standard shell features and
 occasionally, an undisputed bug.   I've never seen a report of a problem
 that related to $ENV and a script.
 
   | but I believe the long-term benefit from standards compliance will 
outweigh 
   | the short-term pain.
 
 Better long term benefit would be to convince the standard to be rational.
 We don't achieve that (not any hope of achieving that) if everyone just does
 what they say because they say it, and not because it is the right thing to
 do.   Following the standards is great when it is a matter of a choice between
 two ways of which we could pick either - and sometimes when it is a matter of
 adding something that we don't really see the need for, but does no real harm
 to have - but never when their design is flawed.
 
 kre