On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:04:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> >> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere independent of >> >> what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's not obvious to me. > >> > As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with you, but >> > bashism has been a cuss word for years before 2004. > >> Source? Policy does not even ban bashims for maintainer scripts. > > Policy 10.4 says: > > If a shell script requires non-SUSv3 features from the shell > interpreter other than those listed above, the appropriate shell must > be specified in the first line of the script (e.g., `#!/bin/bash') and > the package must depend on the package providing the shell (unless the > shell package is marked "Essential", as in the case of `bash').
That is not a ban, is it? > So bashisms are allowed in maintainer scripts only if they invoke /bin/bash > as the interpreter. Sounds like a recipe to allow using bash scripts. > Or do you mean something else by "ban", here? So, saying that people should use dpkg-shlibs, by invoking it just so, is banning dpkg-shlibs? My head spins. manoj -- "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org