Re: RFH: bashisms in configure script
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:10:10PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
> Raphael Geissert <geissert@debian.org> wrote:
>
> A much more sane list is in the bug report:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=45;filename=failed-dash.txt;att=1;bug=582952
>
> 124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540.
>
> (I've heard of off-by-one errors but off-by-one-order-of-magnitude is a
> stretch.)
>
> Please, let's get some accurate figures before raising things like
> this. (Oh, and yes, putting a patched dash into unstable and putting
> this broken one into experimental is a VERY good idea IMHO. It's kinda
> why we have experimental in the first place..... Sheesh! This thing
> gonna give me nightmares.)
You're getting things the wrong way around. The version of dash that
will be put in experimental will be the correct one, the one in unstable
will be the crippled one. The reason things fails isn't because of
dash, but because of sloppy programming on behalf of people that still
believe that bash is the say all and end all when it comes to shell
scripts.
Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/
Reply to: