Re: First draft of review of policy must usage
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:01:32 +0200, Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> said:
>> 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.
I can try to propose better language for this. I think that using pure
bash-specific constructs not found in dash in /bin/sh scripts should
actually be an RC bug, but using test -a or test -o should not. I think
we need to say that /bin/sh scripts are permitted to use POSIX shell
capabilities plus a short list of additional capabilities that everything
other than posh also implement.
>>> @@ -6766,7 +6684,7 @@
> Harmful> /em>, one of the <tt>comp.unix.*</tt> FAQs, which
>>> can be found at <url
>>> id="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/";>.> If an
>>> upstream package comes with <prgn>csh</prgn> scripts
>>> - then you must make sure that they start with
>>> + then you have to make sure that they start with
>>> <tt>#!/bin/csh</tt> and make your package depend on the
>>> <prgn>c-shell</prgn> virtual package. </p>
>> Same as previous.
> Same reason. This is not considered an RC bug, so there is no
> need for this to be a must. We have it on good authority that this
> is not a release critical bug.
Here, I'm dubious that this really isn't RC. I think the only reason why
this isn't listed in the RC criteria is because csh scripts are so rare
that there's no reason to single it out. If a csh script does not start
with /bin/csh (or name some specific csh implementation; maybe there's an
opportunity for wording improvement) or doesn't depend on c-shell, it's
broken and won't work on a Debian system. That sounds rather RC to me.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: