Could fixing shellcheck errors or warnings break intentional unusual syntax for work-arounds for errors in shells with posix incompatibilities like the shell in Solaris?
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2025 4:36 PM To: Philip Rowlands <[email protected]> Cc: Coreutils <[email protected]> Subject: Re: coreutils vs shellcheck On 26/12/2025 20:29, Philip Rowlands wrote: > Is there any appetite for coreutils to be shellcheck-clean? > > For example, in release 9.9 tests/ there are 28 errors, 700 warnings and 2479 > notes. Some of these errors are clearly false positive, and some due to > incorrect syntax under test, but these obscure what may be legitimate bugs or > shell compatibility issues. > > It might be worth splitting these into milestones of "errors first", and > there are diminishing returns as syntax patterns are fixed. > > I'm not suggesting that shellcheck should be a hard block on releases, but I > find it a useful tool, and would be happy to contribute patches as long as > maintainers were generally in favour. It's a good point, But I find shellcheck is very picky. I reviewed all the "errors" and they were all false positives. So TBH I'd avoid churning the tests to be shellcheck clean, but I wouldn't be against tweaking them to be "error" clean. cheers, Padraig
