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

Re: bashisems in maintainer scripts.



On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 05:05:52PM +0100, Bernd S. Brentrup wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Martin Albert wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 March 2004 07:12, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:18:53PM -0800, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > > > This has happend more than once, but it's not a huge problem. 
> > > > However bash should be extended to, be able to, warn about the most
> > > > common compatibility problems.  Every one would benifit from this.
> > >
> > > That would be most productive put to the upstream bash developers. 
> > > There are currently checks in lintian (I presume linda has similar
> > > checks) to find at least some common bashisms used in maintainer
> > > scripts.
> > 
> > First of all is a POSIX sh documentation missing in Debian, ideally 
> > referenced from policy or developers-reference.
> 
> I didn't check but doubt POSIX 1003.* is DFSG-free.
> 
> Why not test maintainer scripts in a chroot with /bin/sh -> dash?

Why not simply use #!/bin/bash (it's essential), nobody is forced to use
/bin/sh...

Baf, all problems gone, bashisms are allowed, if it works with bash, it
works, bash is portable within Debian so problem solved.

Or did I miss something?

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl

Attachment: pgp8KN69IUvYV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: