Re: /bin/sh == bash?
Selon David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > After rereading 10.4, it is clear that POSIX compliance is not mandatory
> > at all.
> ``The standard shell interpreter `/bin/sh' can be a symbolic link to
> any POSIX compatible shell, if `echo -n' does not generate a newline.
> 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') and the package must depend on the
> package providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked
> "Essential", as in the case of `bash').''
> Well, you have the option of _either_ using only POSIX features, _or_
> specifying the appropriate shell. Hence the ``should'' in
> "Thus, shell scripts specifying `/bin/sh' as interpreter should
> only use POSIX features." really only makes any sense if replaced
> with a must. Of course, there is a third option -- having a script that
> fails to work when using a strict POSIX shell, but that implies FTBFS or
> runtime failures, which really isn't an option either.
> Hence I cannot really see how you can say that it's "clear that POSIX
> compliance is not mandatory at all".
I stand correct: POSIX compliance is only necessary when using /bin/sh.
It doesn't force anyone to use a POSIX-compliant shell. In that case,
you need to give the precise name of the shell.
So, two ways of fixing: fixing the script for POSIX-compliance *OR*
SHELL=/bin/bash at the beginning of debian/rules (or /bin/bash in
shell scripts). Both solutions are valid.