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 sta
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 b
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
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 de
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 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
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
> >>
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.
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.
Bastia
> > 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
Mi
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.*.
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
> > regenera
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 kerne
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 (sh
On 25/05/10 at 23:10 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
> Raphael Geissert 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
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? Woul
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/
> (bef
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 de
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.
>
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
Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
> Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> dash recently added support for the magic variable $LINENO, which was the
>> last piece to make it POSIX compliant. However, this change made the
>> autoconf- generated configure scripts use dash to execute
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:51:30PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 04:13:36PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/582952
>> > [2] http://people.debian.org/~geissert/source-bashisms/dd-list.txt
>>
>> That is just a list of all pa
[Kurt Roeckx]
> I get alot of them that have:
> possible bashism in ./configure line 22 ($BASH_SOMETHING):
> elif test -n "${BASH_VERSION+set}" && (set -o posix) >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> possible bashism in ./configure line 147 ($BASH_SOMETHING):
> $as_unset BASH_ENV || test "${BASH_EN
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],
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
> >
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 con
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 doc
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:10:10PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
> Raphael Geissert 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 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert 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 off-by-one errors but off-by-
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 debian-devel-requ...@
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 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 li
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:13:36 -0500
Raphael Geissert 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 script's code. Without
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
signa
> 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
> automatica
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 h
[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, configu
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 auto
39 matches
Mail list logo
