On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 03:40:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Gee. Don't we already have something very like this?
> These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities
> _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_,
> _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive
> violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). [2]
Those classifications haven't been monitored or updated, so no, we don't.
IIRC that changed pretty soon after woody's release, with the creation of
a specific list of RC criteria maintained by the release team. The woody
policy addenda [0], for instance, said:
Bashisms generally aren't release-critical, even when they're in
scripts marked #!/bin/sh. They may be release-critical if their
breakage causes other problems that are release-critical if they
ever happen.
In contrast, policy still states:
Thus, shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should only
use POSIX features. If a script requires non-POSIX features from the
shell interpreter, the appropriate shell must be specified in the
first line of the script (e.g., `#!/bin/bash')
Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use POSIX
features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be specified")? It's
much easier to work out by just looking at the rc_policy text file
maintained by the RM team [1].
Cheers,
aj
[0] http://people.debian.org/~ajt/woody_policy_addenda.txt
[1] http://release.debian.org/etch_rc_policy.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature