Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 09:18:02 +0200
- From: Ralf Treinen <treinen@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Intended MBF: maintainer scripts not using strict mode
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:21:01PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:23 AM, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > we currently have in sid 84 maintainer scripts not using strict mode.
> > That is, they neither start on "#!/bin/[ba]sh -e", nor do a "set -e".
> > The list is attached. This list includes the 12 remaining scripts not
> > starting on #! (bugs are already filed for these).
> Looks like you were talking about these bugs:
Until now we have been putting our bugs under a generic colis-shparser usertag.
Maybe we should start using more specific usertags in addition.
> > What is your opinion? Policy says "should", not "must". If you agree
> > with the MBF, what do you think would be the appropriate severity?
> I note that naively adding "set -e" can make shell scripts more
> brittle, especially when using diff or other commands that can return
> failure in unforeseen circumstances. When doing the MBF, please remind
> people to read their scripts, note the range of exit codes for each
> command and add "|| true" for commands that return failure exit codes
> that do not indicate failures or indicate conditions that should not
> terminate the maintainer script.
Yes, that is a good idea. I have seen indeed quite some scripts in the
corpus (not the ones against which I intend to file bugs) which do a
selective "set +e"/"set -e" around commands that require careful
> PS: will you be packaging the software produced by the CoLiS project?
yes, of course :-)
> PPS: the lintshell link on the CoLiS website requires a login.
lintshell isn't ready for publication yet (the link on our project
website was premature).