On Feb 5 15:36, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > On Sun, 2012-02-05 at 14:41 -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > > We're not debian, and don't explicitly exclude the use of bashism in > > *ALL* [/usr]/bin/*.sh scripts. Even debian doesn't disallow bashisms i > > *usr*/bin/ scripts -- and as /bin == /usr/bin on cygwin, we can't realy > > distinguish between /bin/*.sh and /usr/bin/*sh. Some of our scripts, in > > fact, have sh-bang lines explicitly requiring bash (e.g. cygport). > > > > So...I'm not sure this is a totally useful tool for cygwin; it might > > lead to unnecessary list traffic: > > > > "Hey, checkbashisms complains about /usr/bin/cygport, please fix..." > > > > I realize this doesn't require votes as it is already in debian, and I > > certainly have no veto power, but if it did require votes I'd be giving > > it a '0' not a '+1'. > > You make valid points, but I suppose it would still be useful for > someone writing sh scripts on Cygwin to check their portability to > stricter /bin/sh shells on other systems. > > So while I'm hardly overwhelmed by the necessity for adding this > package, its not completely useless on Cygwin either.
None of Jari's packages needs a vote. All of them need a packaging check, though... *hint, hint* Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
