Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:04:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> >> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere independent of
>> >> what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's not obvious to me.
>
>> > As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with you, but
>> > bashism has been a cuss word for years before 2004.
>
>> Source? Policy does not even ban bashims for maintainer scripts.
>
> Policy 10.4 says:
>
> If a shell script requires non-SUSv3 features from the shell
> interpreter other than those listed above, 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').
That is not a ban, is it?
> So bashisms are allowed in maintainer scripts only if they invoke /bin/bash
> as the interpreter.
Sounds like a recipe to allow using bash scripts.
> Or do you mean something else by "ban", here?
So, saying that people should use dpkg-shlibs, by invoking it
just so, is banning dpkg-shlibs? My head spins.
manoj
--
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
-Bertrand Russell
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: