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

Re: bashisems in maintainer scripts.

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:41:26AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 07:53:37PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > [Jeroen van Wolffelaar]
> > > 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?
> > 
> > Yes.  bash have a bug making it useless as /bin/sh when using LDAP and
> > /usr/ is a separate partition.  See bug #159771 for the details.
> > 
> > /bin/ash do not have this problem, so that is what we use in
> > debian-edu. :)
> Imho it would be a worthy goal in the long run to make bash
> non-essential (a first step would be to make all maintainer-scripts
> using /bin/sh posix-compliant, a second-step to make scripts using
> /bin/bash posix-compliant), but I suppose I'm alone in this.

Some questions:

Why do you want to disallow maintainers to use some more convenient bash

How do you plan to make an essential package non-essential without 
breaking anything?

Would you really be able to remove bash? Similar to initrd-tools' 
dependency on dash, every package maintainer would always be allowed to 
depend on bash when he wants to use bash in his scripts. This is 
perfectly legal, and any maintainer is allowed to tag a wishlist bug 
asking for using a posix-compliant shell instead of bash as "wontfix".

> Regards: David Weinehall



       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Reply to: