On ti, 2011-04-05 at 08:52 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > I'm re-running the scripts, which will probably take a few hours, and > will report results when they're done. If you notice any problems with > the scripts, please tell me ASAP.
The new scripts look also in maintainer scripts. New results: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2.list Summary: 4450 files 973 packages I further ran checkbashisms on every file in bash2.list, and classified files accordingly to the exit code: exit code 0 means it's not a bash script. Result: http://files.liw.fi/temp/reallybash.list Summary: 1787 files classified as bash scripts 2663 not bash scripts Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list Summary: 1775 files 621 packages Assuming I didn't do anything stupid in these scripts or in counting the results, it looks like it's a reasonably small set of packages that would need to add a bash dependency. However, that would require all the #!/bin/bash scripts that don't actually need to be bash to be changed (and tested etc). Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all. Opinions? -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1302104248.2627.88.ca...@havelock.liw.fi