Thanks for your feedback, Jakub, and sorry for the late reply. On Mon, 28 May 2018 19:46:59 +0200 Jakub Wilk <jw...@jwilk.net> wrote: > * Paride Legovini <p...@ninthfloor.org>, 2018-05-28, 17:33: > >spm is a single fully POSIX shell compliant script > > Somehow these kind of grandiose claims are never true. > > This script: > - has a shebang[0]; > - passes -G to grep (not in POSIX); > - uses readlink(1) (not in POSIX).
Good points, I will pass them to the upstream developer. > >Passwords are stored as GPG encrypted files with directories funtioning > >as (sub)groups. > > Typo: funtioning -> functioning Fixed. > >In Debian the script will be installed as 'spm.sh' > > That would be against Policy §10.4. > Please talk to upstream about choosing a different name. Before choosing to install spm as spm.sh I spoke with the upstream developer. At the moment he's not willing to change the name. Policy §10.4 says that "the script name should not include an extension", and I interpreted that as a recommendation, not as a requirement. By weighting the two options: deviating from upstream's name, and not following the recommendation, I chose the latter, with the hope to receive some feedback on the choice. Do you confirm I really should drop the .sh and chose a different name? Cheers, Paride
