Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think checkbashisms and posh are an improvement over just suggesting
> bash (and checkbashisms, in particular, is much easier to use), so my
> inclination is to stick with the new wording and leave the further details
> for other tools.
I assume by 'bash' you mean 'dash' above.
I certainly didn't mean to suggest including a full list in policy.
What I was worried about is that people will follow the following
process:
no checkbashisms warnings?
can posh handle it?
ok, I'm done.
while the following has worked better for me:
can dash handle it?
can ksh88 handle it? (alas, not in Debian)
ok, I'm done.
and the following is ideal:
no checkbashisms warnings?
can all (6?) shells in Debian that are policy-compliant as /bin/sh
handle it?
ok, I'm done, until someone files a bug report.
The test is easier to carry out once the target of /bin/sh is allowed
to vary among more shells. Currently bash and dash are the only link
targets that can be chosen using packages from sid without the symlink
being overwritten by upgrades.
I would prefer a less specific note:
Checking your script with checkbashisms from the devscripts
package or running your script with an alternate shell such as
posh may help uncover violations of the above requirements.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120227233841.GM10740@burratino
