Bug#508546: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#508546: unecessary bashism

2009-08-17 Thread Frédéric Brière
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 06:17:31PM +0100, Yuri D'Elia wrote: > i'm just noting that logcheck can run on any posix-compatible shell by > simply changing one bashism. One bashism does not justity the need of > the whole bash. That's not a bad point; I've therefore just removed the three (useless) ba

Bug#508546: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#508546: unecessary bashism

2008-12-12 Thread Yuri D'Elia
On Friday 12 December 2008 17:27:50 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > What would be the real gain of it? Because actually, I don't really see > it. Especially, what's the deal with calling this severity important? If > anything it is wishlist, not? > > Can you please explain what does upset you so much ab

Bug#508546: [Logcheck-devel] Bug#508546: unecessary bashism

2008-12-12 Thread Gerfried Fuchs
tags 508546 - patch tags 508546 + moreinfo severity 508546 wishlist Am Freitag, den 12.12.2008, 11:25 +0100 schrieb Yuri D'Elia: > Package: logcheck > Severity: important > Tags: patch > > /usr/sbin/logcheck depends on bash to work due to a single bashism > in line 25: > > if [ $UID == 0 ]; then