"Adam D. Barratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > lintian's parsing code certainly sounds better (mainly because > checkbashisms is based on an old version of the lintian code) but, from > a quick look, checkbashisms flags more issues than lintian does. We do > appear to be missing a few though; I'll have a look at getting them back > in sync.
I'd definitely welcome any additional regexes or code to add to lintian. (And at some point we can figure out how to keep this in sync with less effort.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
