On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 16:59 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
