On 25 May 2010 10:27, James Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Raphael Geissert <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I couldn't find another commit fixing the bug you found, so I'm going >> to to include it in my next batch of changes (which I'm testing >> against the archive as I type.) > > I included it in the commit that added changelog entries for your > changes -- be54022.
Right, didn't see it. (Could use \s instead, though :) If you allow me, attached is another mbox with two more patches. The archive-wide check is not done yet and I've only verified some of the results, but there doesn't seem to be any (major at least) bug/regression introduced by those changes. Some false positives are now visible because some portions of code are now actually checked, but that's it. They are both required to make checkbashisms actually find bashisms in complex scripts such as "configure" scripts. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net
checkbashisms-2nd.mbox
Description: Binary data
