On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 08:12:06AM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote: > The fact that a lot of people use a variety of shells does not mean that > it makes sense to include it in *every* bug report. How important is the > user's shell for every database-, web- or fileserver? How for every office > application? How important is it for requests to the release team? > Every single bug report for these (pseudo)packages will include this > information, so it better be important. As Russ pointed out, it's one line. My suggestion was to avoid people wasting time troubleshooting when a small bit of information might help. I know that I prefer having a little extra information than not enough when trying to fix a bug. > > It's much better to have this information up front than to have to guess > > about it, especially since many reporters won't think to mention it. > > If you know that your package might break by using a certain shell, you > can use reportbug's scripts. I don't think the maintainers even considered whether debconf would be broken under zsh. I certainly didn't think it would be, or I wouldn't have set zsh as /bin/sh. Also, it doesn't make sense to make hundreds of packages duplicate the same (or worse, slightly different and potentially subtly broken) code, when it could be in one single place. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature