Hi,
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Joey Hess wrote:
> This is a "script"
>
> #!/bin/cat
> hello, world!
There is no official definition of "script" and "program" that I know of.
So, although I can understand your sentiments, I certainly do not agree
with your strictness in the matter. But again, this is IMHO not really
the matter.
> If this causes cat to segfault, the above script is not the thing containing
> the bug, cat is. If I write a perl script that segfaults, perl is at fault.
> The authors and maintainer of perl seem to agree with me, since every such
> perl script I have submitted as a bug has been treated as a bug in perl and
> fixed.
Technically, I wholeheartedly agree with you in the above matter. The
problem _at_hand_ is that a lot of people are seeing a "segmentation
fault" message. The /primary/ causes are the buggy scripts in
/etc/menu-methods and these should be fixed first.
Apart from that, yes I agree, /usr/sbin/install-{fvwmgen,}menu is buggy to
lose its mind in a segfault and should be properly recoded. But that is
a bugreport to be submitted against menu and not to be discussed on the
topic of a bugreport against apt.
> Your statement is unclear. I can agree that whatever binary is interpreting
> the script is guilty of causing the segfault. If you're instead saying that
> the _script_ is at fault, I must disagree.
Lets conclude that both are guilty, each in a different way :-)
Cheers,
Joost
