Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-08 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Santiago On 7 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Anyway, bash is essential, /bin/bash shall always be there, using /bin/bash shall never cause any problems, Santiago That argument is also not convincing at all. Sorry. It

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-08 Thread Herbert Xu
Manoj Srivastava wrote: /bin/sh, and /bin/sh happens to be an incompatible shell. (ins't rc a POSIX shell too?). I think that is a potential point of failure, as No rc is not a POSIX shell, look: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ rc ; alias a=a parse error And posix says you must implement aliases. --

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Herbert Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Herbert cvs-inject and cvs-upgrade seems to work with ash (though I Herbert didn't test them thoroughly) so they probably should switch Herbert to #!/bin/sh.

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 6 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Herbert Yes but unless you actually require any non-POSIX features, Herbert you should use /bin/sh (this is specified by the policy). Herbert And currently I don't see anything like that in your scripts. Where?

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Santiago -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 6 Mar 1998, Manoj Santiago Srivastava wrote: Herbert Yes but unless you actually require any non-POSIX features, Herbert you should use /bin/sh (this is specified by the policy). And Herbert

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 7 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: using /bin/sh is just waiting for a problem to occur, Oh, yes, removing the /usr/spool symlink is also waiting for a problem to occur... That argument does not convince me at all. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version:

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Santiago Vila
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 7 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Anyway, bash is essential, /bin/bash shall always be there, using /bin/bash shall never cause any problems, That argument is also not convincing at all. If you really believe what you are saying, then please

Re: Bug#19048: cvs-buildpackage: they should use /bin/sh and not bash

1998-03-07 Thread Guy Maor
I wrote this bit of policy, and Manoj's interpretation is correct. It's nice, but not required, for scripts to use /bin/sh. Manoj is being pretty reasonable here: The code is not done yet. When I deem it finished, and if it still does not use bashisms, I shall think about changing it.