Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> @@ -6736,10 +6654,10 @@
>> the LSB anyway.
>> </footnote>
>> Thus, shell scripts specifying <file>/bin/sh</file> as
>> - interpreter must only use POSIX features. If a script
>> + interpreter should only use POSIX features. If a script
>> requires non-POSIX features from the shell interpreter, the
>> - appropriate shell must be specified in the first line of the
>> - script (e.g., <tt>#!/bin/bash</tt>) and the package must
>> + appropriate shell should be specified in the first line of the
>> + script (e.g., <tt>#!/bin/bash</tt>) and the package should
>> depend on the package providing the shell (unless the shell
>> package is marked "Essential", as in the case of
>> <prgn>bash</prgn>).
>
>> Why do change the second and third must to a should?
>
>> If the script uses features from bash, and /bin/sh points to for
>> instance dash, it's going to break. So you either stick to POSIX,
>> or you say which shell you need.
>
>> Also, when the script needs dash, and has #!/bin/dash, and dash is
>> not installed, it's not going to work, so we really need that
>> depedency.
>
> This flows from the Release policy. Not specifying /bin/bash
> in scripts is not considered a RC bug.
Oh Gosh! This _is_ a RC bug. If I change the /bin/sh to point to
/bin/dash (and I usually do that) some script will break and this
cannot happen since they said, when defining their shell as sh, that
they're using just POSIX functionality.
That kinda of change in policy can decrease the overall quality of
packages. Release policy is _wrong_.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: