On 2010-05-26 00:18:23 +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
You're getting things the wrong way around. The version of dash that
will be put in experimental will be the correct one, the one in unstable
will be the crippled one. The reason things fails isn't because of
dash, but because of sloppy
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc
file that corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain,
review and fix. The .dsc files contain checkbashisms' output.
Do you want to start a
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 08:05:32AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm still feeling uneasy about this whole bash-dash thing. We sacrified
a lot of usability in the name of POSIX compliance (only a minority of
users care) and a few seconds spared during boot (who cares? I only boot
my laptop for
On Tuesday 25 May 2010, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc
file that corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain,
review and fix. The .dsc files contain checkbashisms' output.
Do you want to start a list with errors that can be
Hi,
I'm still feeling uneasy about this whole bash-dash thing. We sacrified
a lot of usability in the name of POSIX compliance (only a minority of
users care) and a few seconds spared during boot (who cares? I only boot
my laptop for kernel upgrades).
Was is really the right path to follow?
On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
A much more sane list is in the bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=45;filename=failed-dash.txt;att=1;bug=582952
124 source packages.
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Peter Samuelson wrote:
And more false positives:
possible bashism in ./configure line 44 ($BASH_SOMETHING):
if test -z $BASH_VERSION$ZSH_VERSION \
(test X`print -r -- $as_echo` = X$as_echo) 2/dev/null; then
possible bashism in ./configure line 367 (should be word
On 05/26/2010 08:05 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I'm still feeling uneasy about this whole bash-dash thing. We sacrified
a lot of usability in the name of POSIX compliance (only a minority of
users care) and a few seconds spared during boot (who cares? I only boot
my laptop for kernel
On mar., 2010-05-25 at 19:35 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
./configure is a *generated* script too, if dash cannot handle it, dash
has to be crippled to let the other packages continue working. Unless
autoconf itself has already been patched to fix all of these issues when
regenerating
On mer., 2010-05-26 at 08:29 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
It is not about whether dash can handle it or not. The bashisms
don't come
from autoconf, the come from what the author's added to
configure.in{,.in}.
I beg to differ, at least some of them don't come from configure.*.
One
This doesn't necessarily mean that we are drowned by bashisms, as some of
those may already be fixed by Debian- provided packages or might affect
unused code
s/packages/patches/
Don't you think we should run the test *after* the patches got applied?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:55:58PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
For example, almost all udebs are listed. Why? Because udebs execute
busybox shell as /bin/sh, which happens to be fairly compatible with bash.
The busybox /bin/sh is also a dash, but a different version than the
dash package.
Bastian
On 26/05/10 08:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540.
(I've heard of off-by-one errors but off-by-one-order-of-magnitude is a
stretch.)
No. 124 is the number of packages that failed to build. Not the
On 26/05/10 at 11:55 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
On 26/05/10 08:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540.
(I've heard of off-by-one errors but off-by-one-order-of-magnitude is a
stretch.)
On 26/05/10 13:14, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/10 at 11:55 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
Right. That's exactly why I suggested debdiffing the resulting binary
packages
from a new and an old dash.
Are you volunteering? :-)
No. I'm not volunteering on adding LINENO support back to
On mercredi 26 mai 2010 02:39:52 Raphael Geissert wrote:
[SNIP]
Yes, $BASH_SOMETHING is just used to make it easier to see that the
following code (probably a bashism) is only executed after checking the
shell is actually bash. That and the other FP are the most common ones, yet
not that
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 03:00:58 Michael Meskes wrote:
Don't you think we should run the test *after* the patches got applied?
That's done if the package uses format 3.0 (quilt).
Regards,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi everyone,
dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which was the last
piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change made the autoconf-
generated configure scripts use dash to execute the script's code. Without
support for LINENO, configure scripts exec to bash
[Raphael Geissert]
Hi everyone,
dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which
was the last piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change
made the autoconf- generated configure scripts use dash to execute
the script's code. Without support for LINENO, configure
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/582952
[2] http://people.debian.org/~geissert/source-bashisms/dd-list.txt
That is just a list of all packages per person? It's listing
packages that have no shell script in it at all, and also
don't
dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which was
the last piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change made the
autoconf- generated configure scripts use dash to execute the script's
code. Without support for LINENO, configure scripts exec to bash
automatically.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 23:45:56 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
What about reverting this change in dash until after Squeeze is
released? Now seem like a bad time to make thousand of packages in
Debian fail to build from source. :)
That's the plan, see #582952.
Cheers,
Julien
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which was the
last
piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change made the autoconf-
generated configure scripts use dash to execute the
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:51:30PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/582952
[2] http://people.debian.org/~geissert/source-bashisms/dd-list.txt
That is just a list of all packages per person? It's listing
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file that
corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and fix. The
.dsc
files contain checkbashisms' output.
I get alot of them that have:
On 25/05/10 23:45, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
What about reverting this change in dash until after Squeeze is
released? Now seem like a bad time to make thousand of packages in
Debian fail to build from source. :)
See bug #582952.
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
A much more sane list is in the bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=45;filename=failed-dash.txt;att=1;bug=582952
124 source packages. Bad, but not as crazy as 1,540.
(I've heard of
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:10:10PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
A much more sane list is in the bug report:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=45;filename=failed-dash.txt;att=1;bug=582952
124
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file that
corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and fix. The
.dsc
files contain checkbashisms' output.
Is there some kind of
I demand that Kurt Roeckx may or may not have written...
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file
that corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and fix.
The .dsc files contain
This one time, at band camp, Kurt Roeckx said:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file
that
corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and fix. The
.dsc
files
On 25/05/10 23:13, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Normally I would process the results and file the bug reports myself but I
don't have and won't have time to do it any time soon. I've already tried to
find some time yesterday and today to work on checkbashisms to come up with
bug
fixes[4], and
[Kurt Roeckx]
I get alot of them that have:
possible bashism in ./configure line 22 ($BASH_SOMETHING):
elif test -n ${BASH_VERSION+set} (set -o posix) /dev/null 21; then
possible bashism in ./configure line 147 ($BASH_SOMETHING):
$as_unset BASH_ENV || test ${BASH_ENV+set} !=
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:51:30PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/582952
[2] http://people.debian.org/~geissert/source-bashisms/dd-list.txt
That is just a list of all packages per
Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org wrote:
dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which was the
last piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change made the
autoconf- generated configure scripts use dash
Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that Kurt Roeckx may or may not have written...
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file
that corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and
fix.
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
1. If your name is on the list at [2] please check at [3] the .dsc file
that
corresponds to the source packages you co-/maintain, review and fix. The
.dsc files contain checkbashisms' output.
Is there
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
It would also be good to build all the archive (or all the affected
packages) with and without LINENO support in dash, and then debdiff'ing
them and check if they are equal or not.
A full archive rebuild was already done by Lucas (see the br against dash
for
Hi,
Given the recent responses I'm providing some more info, updates, and hints.
Raphael Geissert wrote:
This doesn't necessarily mean that we are drowned by bashisms, as some of
those may already be fixed by Debian- provided packages or might affect
unused code
s/packages/patches/
(before
39 matches
Mail list logo
