On 27/06/17 18:47, Russ Allbery wrote: > Ralf Treinen <trei...@free.fr> writes: >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:09:26PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > >>> sigh. >>> And using `#!/bin(ba)?sh -e` is not good either (there is a lintian tag >>> about it, iirc). > >> what is the rationale for this? Is anyone calling maintainer scripts >> like "sh <script>" ? > > Correct. It's a minor tweak that only matters in somewhat unusual > circumstances, but there's no downside.
Should maintainer-script-without-set-e[1] be bumped to a warning, and eventually (when the number of affected packages goes down) make it an error and auto-reject? Or if not, we should add another tag if we want to allow -e in the shebang, and make that new tag an autoreject check. Cheers, Emilio [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/maintainer-script-without-set-e.html
