Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery wrote: >> My concern about the simple approach to this (which I never sent to the >> bug; my bad) is that the other major use of read besides prompting is >> for parsing files. It's not uncommon to see a construct like: >> >> while read facility destination ; do >> # do something with facility and destination >> done < /etc/syslog.conf >> >> Your patch won't produce false positives with this, but I don't know if >> there are any scripts that do something similar but don't use that >> explicit of a loop. I don't see any in a quick check on my system, but >> I only have a few packages installed.
> I would be surprised to see it happen, but if it happens we can always > improve the checking, no? True. > Why would essential packages not try to use debconf if available? Good point. Okay, applying this now, with just a few changes: * This check should only be inside the if test for whether this is a shell script, since read may mean something else entirely in another language. * It should ignore information inside heredocs (one of the tests in the lintian test suite checks this). * Skipping based on /usr/share/debconf/confmodule instead of db_input is better, since some scripts do: if ! test -f /usr/share/debconf/confmodule ; then # some code that uses read fi Thank you very much for the contribution! -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]