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: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=colis-shparser;users=trei...@debian.org
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 error handling. > 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). -Ralf.
