On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 05:54:48PM +0100, Christoph Martin wrote:
> Steve Langasek schrieb:
> > severity 519973 minor
> > thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:48:23AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Package: libpam0g
> >> Version: 1.0.1-7
> >> Severity: normal
> >
> >> The title says it all: the postinst script (for version 1.0.1-7) uses
> >> #!/bin/bash" without specifying a dependency on the `bash' package,
> >
> > Because bash is an essential package and using it does not require a
> > dependency.
> >
> >> and apparently unnecessarily because replacing it with /bin/sh (which
> >> in my case is dash) seemed to make it work just fine. I think those
> >> scripts should refrain from using bash(isms).
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this is true. I don't see any obvious bashisms in the
> > script, and running 'checkbashisms' over it also says that it's ok.
> >
> > However, just to be safe, I'm cc:ing the author of the script that this was
> > originally based on. Christoph, do you recall why the libssl0.9.8 postinst
> > script uses /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh? If there's no reason for it, then
> > I guess both of these packages should switch to using /bin/sh.
>
> No. I don't remember, why /bin/bash was used. Kurt, do you?
>
> > My best guess as to the reason would be the use of IFS or local; but from
> > what I can tell, IFS is specified in POSIX, and the use of local is
> > permitted by Debian policy despite not being POSIX.
At some point in time, a script complained that local was
a bashism. The changelog has this about it:
* libssl0.9.8.postinst makes uses of bashisms (local variables)
so use #!/bin/bash
Kurt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
