On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 08:55:31AM +0200, Joël Krähemann wrote:
> On gum, 2014-09-26 at 11:28 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > I noticed that you appear to be filing several RC bugs against packages
> > which use /bin/bash shebangs in their scripts.
> >
> > These bugs are *not* RC. The packages themselves do not have security
> > issues. The interpreter they choose to use {may,does}, but that is not a
> > bug in grep, xz-utils or gzip.
> >
> > You should also know by now that mass bug filing without prior
> > discussion is discouraged, regardless of the severity.
> >
> > Finally, the rationale presented for the bugs - "against the debian
> > policy to use /bin/sh if possible" - is bogus. Debian Policy makes no
> > such requirement or even suggestion. It spells out what functionality
> > scripts using /bin/sh may rely on, it in no way implies that other
> > shells may not be used if appropriate shebangs and dependencies are in
> > place.
>
> I don't know what you're doing. Since I use bash I'm scared about this
> news. But doesn't the Unix specification explain how to reset terminals?
The quoted mail has nothing to do with terminals; and, regardless of any
movement to cut down on the use of bash scripts in Debian itself, you'll
of course still be able to use bash for your own purposes.
> Have you ever read this sentence: Read the fucking manual.
There is no need for this on Debian mailing lists. Please keep things
civil and respectful.
--
Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141004210310.gb24...@riva.ucam.org
