From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28342 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2012 21:37:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 28088 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Feb 2012 21:37:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iy0-f171.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f171.google.com) (209.85.210.171) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:36:49 +0000 Received: by iaeh11 with SMTP id h11so9254019iae.2 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.179.106 with SMTP id df10mr18225908igc.6.1328477808695; Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (S0106000cf16f58b1.wp.shawcable.net. [24.79.200.150]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm15644249ibe.0.2012.02.05.13.36.47 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:36:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1328477811.7876.6.camel@YAAKOV04> Subject: Re: ITP checkbashisms -- Check for bashisms in /bin/sh scripts From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4F2EDB87.5090605@cwilson.fastmail.fm> References: <87k443htal.fsf@cante.cante.net> <4F2EDB87.5090605@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 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. Yaakov