On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 05:03:00PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 08:41:48AM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > And while we are at it, do we *really* need the information about
> > /bin/sh in at least a significant share of today's bug reports?
>
> You probably want it, because a decent number of people use a shell
> other than bash or dash as /bin/sh. For example, one might use
> mksh-static because it's statically linked. Also, someone might try to
> use zsh as /bin/sh, which doesn't work (it breaks debconf).
The fact that a lot of people use a variety of shells does not mean that
it makes sense to include it in *every* bug report. How important is the
user's shell for every database-, web- or fileserver? How for every office
application? How important is it for requests to the release team?
Every single bug report for these (pseudo)packages will include this
information, so it better be important.
> It's much better to have this information up front than to have to guess
> about it, especially since many reporters won't think to mention it.
If you know that your package might break by using a certain shell, you
can use reportbug's scripts.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140325071206.GA17855@t61
