Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug #33826: Policy should discuss '.sh' suffixes on
/etc/init.d files
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Feb 1999 23:24:30 +0000
Received: (qmail 32040 invoked from network); 24 Feb 1999 23:24:27 -0000
Received: from wythdantis.gemair.com (209.115.68.31)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 1999 23:24:26 -0000
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by wythdantis.gemair.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA03699;
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:24:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dayoh-a181.gemair.com(209.115.69.181) by wythdantis.gemair.com
via smap (V2.0beta)
id xma003686; Wed, 24 Feb 99 18:24:04 -0500
Received: by gemair.com
via sendmail from stdin
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Debian Smail3.2.0.101)
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:15:54 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:15:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Hawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: section 3.4.2 clarify naming .sh scripts in /etc/init.d/
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.1.5
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.4.1.2
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.0
Kernel Version: Linux debian 2.0.34 #2 Thu Jul 9 10:57:48 EST 1998 i686 unknown
Sentence 2 of paragraph 1 says: "These scripts should be named
/etc/init.d/package,"
when should scripts have a .sh suffix?
rc and rcS scripts optimize by sourcing .sh scripts
All bash scripts could be sourced
Should all scripts be bash scripts
or should all bash compatible scripts have a .sh suffix
Is the .sh suffix just a matter of historical use or does it matter?
--
Richard L. Hawes
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.dma.org/~rhawes
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 33826-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:16:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 13 13:16:57 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 206.180.143.9.adsl.hal-pc.org (speedy.private)
[::ffff:206.180.143.9]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 15AFCK-0003Tz-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:56 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 3A78E46FD; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug #33826: Policy should discuss '.sh' suffixes on /etc/init.d
files
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED], not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead
issues.
Bug #33826: Policy should discuss '.sh' suffixes on /etc/init.d files
Summary: Policy didn't say anything special about '.sh' scripts. After
a few disconnected replies (it seems that some, but not all, messages
from another discussion were being forwarded to this bug) it trailed
off. Julian Gilbey later asked for a proposed improvement to policy.
There were no replies.
Discussion: The current version of Policy includes the sentence "Also,
if the script name ends .sh, the script will be sourced in runlevel S
rather that being run in a forked subprocess, but will be explicitly
run by sh in all other runlevels" which would seem to resolve this bug
report. My reading of bug discussion leads me to believe there may
another issue: assumptions about sh == bash for those scripts (this
wasn't specifically discussed in the proposal, because at the time we
didn't explicitly support non-bash /bin/sh, IIRC).
Action: I'm going to close this one, but it might be a good idea to
address the sh vs bash issue for '.sh' scripts in /etc/rcS.d.
