[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bashims in debian/rules



Roman Hodek:
> I think you misunderstood "cross compilation" in the original mail. It
> meant compiling Debian packages on a non-Debian system, where sh isn't
> bash.

I don't think we should attempt to support `cross compilation' in this
sense.  That way we end up importing a lot of braindamage over which
we have no control, and can no longer fix bugs where they are but have
to work around them.

Santiago Vila Doncel:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Eric Delaunay wrote:
> > IMO, makefiles that use bashims should put SHELL=/bin/bash at top
> > them, but most packages just use one bashim: curly brackets in
> > file names (like debian/{postinst,prerm}).  Then the better
> > solution will be to simply rewrite the line to remove it.
> 
> I fully agree. If this is the only bashism (read: non-POSIX), it is
> worth to remove it, those constructions are often very easy to
> rewrite.

I disagree strongly.  The use of { } makes the rules files clearer and
avoids duplication of information (which is always a bad idea, because
the two copies can end up different).

> I have just reported this against `hello' package, since it is
> supposed to be a "model" on which new packages are created.

I'll change the `hello' package to say
 SHELL=/bin/bash
(since James Troup notes that make doesn't search PATH).  I'll add a
comment saying that absolute paths are usually bad, and why this one
is OK.

Ian.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: