* Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [2010-02-08 23:58:30 CET]: > Gerfried Fuchs <rho...@debian.at> writes: > > In a maintainerscript that starts off with "#!/bin/sh -e" an additional > > "set -e" doesn't make much sense - though it seems like lintian insists > > on this style. It would be pretty convenient if lintian would allow > > handing the -e on the shebang line too. > > Lintian should support either but give you an info-level tag for using the > first form, which includes an explanation for why this is not the > recommended style. Is that not the behavior that you're seeing?
Ah, now I see the difference. Though, I'd like to challenge the explenation: This is fine for normal operation, but if the script is run by hand with "sh /path/to/script" (common in debugging), "-e" will not be in effect. It's therefore better to use "set -e" in the body of the script. This explenation assumes that all scripts are posix compliant shell scripts - which they don't have to be. They can be bash scripts or perl scripts too. Given that one *has* to check what type of script it is (like, head -1 script) it is directly visible from there that -e is set. . o O ( and actually one would probably use set -ex script for debugging anyway, plain "sh script" is rather uncommon for debugging) Just some thoughts. :) Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
