On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 12:24:29 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
said:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:39:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Is a bashism in a /bin/sh script a normal bug ("should only use
>> > POSIX features"), or a RC bug ("the appropriate shell bust be
>> > specified")? It's much easier to work out by just looking at the
>> > rc_policy text file maintained by the RM team [1].
>> Neither. It is a non RC serious bug.
> No, it's not. It's a minor/normal bug in the package, and a bug in
> policy that it's implied to be a serious bug.
Can you point me to the bug number of the policy bug?
I personally think that maintainer scripts should allow for
/bin/sh to be not bash; or there should be documentation to the
effect that non bash /bin/sh is not supported.
This is tension between quality of implementation (making sure
that maintianer scripts do not fall on their faces wehen the user
takes the supported action of chaning /bin/sh, and the new fangled
rush to push things out on time, ready or not, that makes such bugs
non RC.
I still think we should go for quality of implementation.
I also seem to be a minority in this regard.
If the project feels that we should downgrade policy not to
set our maintainer scripts to allow for the admin to set /bin/sh to
be not bash, they can file a bug on policy, and so indicate their
belief on the bug reprot; I'll reluctantly degrade policy.
manoj
--
"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!!
YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
