On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:23:56PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not
> starting on #! (bugs are already filed for these).
sigh.
And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag
about it, iirc).
> I had a cursory look over the listed maintainer scripts, and did not
> find any that does a careful checking of exit statuses. Though some
> of them are quite trivial, or even sometimes empty. It looks to me
> as not using strict mode in these cases is an oversight, and I would
> like to file bugs for these.
Yes, they are bugs, I agree.
> What is your opinion? Policy says "should", not "must". If you agree
> with the MBF, what do you think would be the appropriate severity?
I do agree and support the MBF. I think they should be at most
severity important, possibly checkig some of those packages (I'm
thinking about samba, samhain, ..) to see whether an eventual failure
would be very bed and in those case even be RC.
Please, as usual, file those bugs using some usertag.
BTW, you forgot to attach a dd-list and a proposed text for review.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature