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

Re: First draft of review of policy must usage

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> said: 

>> Why do change the second and third must to a should?

>> If the script uses features from bash, and /bin/sh points to for
>> instance dash, it's going to break.  So you either stick to POSIX,
>> or you say which shell you need.

>> Also, when the script needs dash, and has #!/bin/dash, and dash is
>> not installed, it's not going to work, so we really need that
>> depedency.

>         This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
>  in scripts is not considered a RC bug.

I can try to propose better language for this.  I think that using pure
bash-specific constructs not found in dash in /bin/sh scripts should
actually be an RC bug, but using test -a or test -o should not.  I think
we need to say that /bin/sh scripts are permitted to use POSIX shell
capabilities plus a short list of additional capabilities that everything
other than posh also implement.

>>> @@ -6766,7 +6684,7 @@
> Harmful> /em>, one of the <tt>comp.unix.*</tt> FAQs, which
>>> can be found at <url
>>> id="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/";>.> If an
>>> upstream package comes with <prgn>csh</prgn> scripts
>>> - then you must make sure that they start with
>>> + then you have to make sure that they start with
>>> <tt>#!/bin/csh</tt> and make your package depend on the
>>> <prgn>c-shell</prgn> virtual package.  </p>

>> Same as previous.

>         Same reason. This is not considered an RC bug, so there is no
>  need for this to be a must.  We have it on good authority that this
>  is not a release critical bug.

Here, I'm dubious that this really isn't RC.  I think the only reason why
this isn't listed in the RC criteria is because csh scripts are so rare
that there's no reason to single it out.  If a csh script does not start
with /bin/csh (or name some specific csh implementation; maybe there's an
opportunity for wording improvement) or doesn't depend on c-shell, it's
broken and won't work on a Debian system.  That sounds rather RC to me.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: