Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Dwayne C. Litzenberger
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 04:04:39PM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash". > Those could be put to a stress test through: It's also relatively trivial to just run through the archive, looking for shell scripts and at least sh -n them from vari

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 21:33 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > As I said, it is perfectly possible for a maintainer to write a script > > which works on any shell and allows the user to pick at installation > > time (heck, or even per-user!) which shell to use. > > How cool that would be to be asked 10

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Thomas Bushnell] > Why not fix the bash bug instead?? Yes, I ask myself the same question. This bug was submitted as a bash bug, and then passed on to the ldap library package by the bash maintainer, and then passed back to bash and forwarded to upstream, which never addressed it. No idea why t

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:20:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > > > > Instead of focusing and hamm

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:31 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Thomas Bushnell] > > I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space > > hog than bash. > > Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to > umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #1

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Thomas Bushnell BSG
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not > > > > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash? > > >

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said: > > > "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is > > > usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include > > > bashis

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 03:54:05PM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > > Maybe bash should restrict its features when called sh... like gzip > > changes its features when called gunzip, etc. > I think this would complicate the bash's C-code base unnecessarily. > The problem is not in the bash, but in the s

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Jari Aalto
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said: > > "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is > > usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include > > bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to sta

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Jari Aalto
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > And this is only possible if scripts use > > > > /bin/sh > > > > The /bin/sh could be any valid shell that provided the standard set > > of features. > > > > Th

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Jari Aalto said: > "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is > usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include > bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard > sh-way-of-doing-things. > > It's easier t

Bug#400322: Chapter 7.x: please specify more explicitly which fields can be restricted to archs

2006-11-25 Thread Holger Levsen
package: debian-policy version: 3.7.2.2 severity: wishlist Hi, "7.1 Syntax of relationship fields" says "All fields that specify build-time relationships (Build-Depends, Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts and Build-Conflicts-Indep) may be restricted to a certain set of architectures." In "7.

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Thomas Bushnell] > I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space > hog than bash. Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #159771). Bash loads user information using nss when it starts, and thus l

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 09:51:37AM +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And this is only possible if scripts use > > /bin/sh > > The /bin/sh could be any valid shell that provided the standard set > of features. > > The installation system ("Essential") which sets /bin/sh to poin

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread David Weinehall
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can post > > > a patch to provide alternative solu

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

2006-11-25 Thread Jari Aalto
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can post > > a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know > > alternative constructs (having lea