Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (401 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Can we assume that /bin/sh is bash?

On 13/03/2019 07:28, Martin Wilck wrote:
On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 15:51 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 3/12/19 3:41 PM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

The longer this thread evolves, the more I wonder how a decision
be reached. But I do think we need one. Otherwise we'll waste
energy in
pointless races where some people remove bashisms and others
new ones. We all have better things to do.

I can't see a consensus reached in this discussion. Yet, a request
put /bin/sh under control of update-alternatives is on the way to
Factory. So just creating facts.

Which is perfect!

No it is not. A public discussion which was by no means settled is
being ended the hard way, "creating facts". I can't imagine that that's
what Richard meant. This "solution" is thoroughly lacking the "human
touch" that Richard mentioned in his talk. It's also highly doubtful
whether everyone involved in the discussion "feels they were heard".
I, personally, do not. My key point in the discussion was that we need
to settle on a unique, well-defined, existing shell with which scripts
can be tested for compliance. After this change, we have the opposite.
/bin/sh is now a black box that behaves "posix compliant"
in some weakly defined way. Scripts may work, or they may not - no
reliable way to find out.

What I least understand is that this massive change is being rushed to
factory in less than 2 weeks, while other things keep lurking in home
projects or devel projects for ages. For example, in the course of
this discussion, I'd been trying to help XRevan86 to get a working
version of "checkbashisms" into factory, but so far it hasn't even
received a devel project review (

That was my approach to the subject, take some small steps, evaluate
benefits, risks, and challenges, and then flip the switch (or not). But
the big axe seems to be preferred. Well then. I've learned a not-so-
nice lesson about openSUSE today.

I probably sound like a sore looser. Perhaps I am, although I'm not
strongly on one side of the "pro-and-contra bash" discussion. I
understand the "openSUSE is what you make it" mantra. But I dislike the
way it's bluntly being applied here.

I tend to agree, with Martin here, I don't think such a change should be made until we can guarantee things wont break, and we can't do that until there is a way for packagers like me who have never cared what is / isn't a bashism to know they are breaking something as part of the buildsystem.

I would request that those who are making such SR's stop until there is checks for bashism's as part of the buildsystem, otherwise i'll raise it to the board, as quite clearly at the moment the objections / concerns raised in the discussions on this list are not being taken into account in the current submissions.

While I am generally ok with people making this change if they would like to I think it needs to be done right, and the current submission is not doing it right.


Simon Lees (Simotek)

Emergency Update Team
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups