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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On 25 Nov 2006 10:02:14 +0200, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> said:

> Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org> writes:
>> On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net>
>> said:
>> > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can
>> > post a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may
>> > not know alternative constructs (having learned only bashism).
>> Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to do here.  Can you
>> please explain what dependencies have to do with wishlist bugreports?

> "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is
> usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include
> bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard
> sh-way-of-doing-things.

> It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash".
> Those could be put to a stress test through:

IMHO, this is trying to use dependencies for something that it was not
meant for.  Sure, it may make it easier to find scripts with possible
bashisms, but I would not consider this to be a reason for telling
people to depend on bash, just to make someone else's job easier.

Those who care can 'grep "#\! */bin/bash" /usr/bin/* /etc/init.d/*' etc,
or run through the archive.  If a maintainer knows about a bashism and
is interested in getting rid of it but doesn't know how, they can file a
wishlist bug against their own package, and tag it 'help'.

Making "Depends: bash" a requirement would affect too many packages, and
making it a suggestion is IMHO no better than asking maintainers to file
wishlist bug reports.

Hubert Chan <uhoreg@debian.org> -- Jabber: hubert@uhoreg.ca
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA         http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA

Reply to: