Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode
On 27/06/17 18:47, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Treinen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>>> And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag
>>> about it, iirc).
>> what is the rationale for this? Is anyone calling maintainer scripts
>> like "sh <script>" ?
> Correct. It's a minor tweak that only matters in somewhat unusual
> circumstances, but there's no downside.
Should maintainer-script-without-set-e be bumped to a warning, and eventually
(when the number of affected packages goes down) make it an error and auto-reject?
Or if not, we should add another tag if we want to allow -e in the shebang, and
make that new tag an autoreject check.