On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:04:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere independent of
> >> what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's not obvious to me.
> > As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with you, but
> > bashism has been a cuss word for years before 2004.
> Source? Policy does not even ban bashims for maintainer scripts.
Policy 10.4 says:
If a shell script requires non-SUSv3 features from the shell
interpreter other than those listed above, the appropriate shell must
be specified in the first line of the script (e.g., `#!/bin/bash') and
the package must depend on the package providing the shell (unless the
shell package is marked "Essential", as in the case of `bash').
So bashisms are allowed in maintainer scripts only if they invoke /bin/bash
as the interpreter.
Or do you mean something else by "ban", here?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
