FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-10-2008, 12:52 AM
Clint Adams
 
Default List of packages shipping shell scripts with bashisms + MBF proposal

On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 04:39:11PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This one is somewhat arguable. Pure POSIX doesn't allow signal numbers,
> but the XSI extension to POSIX does and dash and posh both support them.
> We do not, in general, accept XSI extensions, but it's hard to argue
> strongly for excluding a feature that even posh supports.

Since 0.5.6, it does not; the only number it understands is the
pseudo-signal 0, mandated by POSIX.

The reason POSIX doesn't allow numbers is that they are inconsistent
from platform to platform. People who learn signals on a commercial OS
of yore sometimes assume that signal 5 means something other than
SIGTRAP on Debian, and script traps and kills that end up not doing what
is intended.

When the names are used, this confusion is avoided.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-10-2008, 09:10 PM
"Adam D. Barratt"
 
Default List of packages shipping shell scripts with bashisms + MBF proposal

On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 16:59 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Atm, checkbashisms only complains with this:
> >
> >> _From_: bashisms-amd64-2.10.15/libtool_1.5.26-1_amd64.deb
> >> possible bashism in ./usr/bin/libtool line 1218 (trap with signal
> > numbers):
>
> It's weird that it calls this a "possible bashism". It's not a
> bashism (at most, it's an XSI-ism) and it's so pervasively
> supported that even Autoconf uses it.

In hindsight, checkbashisms may not have been the best name for the
script, but checkscriptcompliestosus isn't quite as catchy. :-)

I'm debating adding an option to ignore XSI-isms when checking scripts.
However, I will add that a) the check is also in lintian, albeit only
for maintainer scripts and b) so far as I can see, using it in scripts
with a /bin/sh shebang is technically a policy violation, even if not
one that people care about.

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-10-2008, 09:12 PM
"Adam D. Barratt"
 
Default List of packages shipping shell scripts with bashisms + MBF proposal

On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 16:39 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Atm, checkbashisms only complains with this:
> >
> >> _From_: bashisms-amd64-2.10.15/libtool_1.5.26-1_amd64.deb
> >> possible bashism in ./usr/bin/libtool line 1218 (trap with signal
> > numbers):
> >> trap "$run $rm $removelist; exit $EXIT_FAILURE" 1 2 15
>
> This one is somewhat arguable. Pure POSIX doesn't allow signal numbers,
> but the XSI extension to POSIX does and dash and posh both support them.
> We do not, in general, accept XSI extensions, but it's hard to argue
> strongly for excluding a feature that even posh supports.

That check was recently added during the lintian <-> checkbashisms sync.
If the feeling is that its incorrect, it should probably be removed from
lintian as well.

Adam


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org