do pkg_postinst() scripts need to start with "#!/bin/sh -e"?

do pkg_postinst() scripts need to start with "#!/bin/sh -e"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  more manual pedantry -- dev manual, section 5.3.16, suggests:

 A post-installation function has the following structure:

     pkg_postinst_PACKAGENAME() {
     #!/bin/sh -e
     # Commands to carry out
     }

except that every example of a pkg_postinst() script i've ever seen
does not contain that initial hash-bang line, so the manual should at
least be reworded to be consistent with the code base.

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: do pkg_postinst() scripts need to start with "#!/bin/sh -e"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
>   more manual pedantry -- dev manual, section 5.3.16, suggests:
>
>  A post-installation function has the following structure:
>
>      pkg_postinst_PACKAGENAME() {
>      #!/bin/sh -e
>      # Commands to carry out
>      }
>
> except that every example of a pkg_postinst() script i've ever seen
> does not contain that initial hash-bang line, so the manual should
> at least be reworded to be consistent with the code base.

  i take it back, i just ran across this example in base-passwd.bb:

pkg_postinst_${PN}-update () {
#!/bin/sh
if [ -n "$D" ]; then
        exit 0
fi
${sbindir}/update-passwd
}

which (naturally) doesn't use the "-e" option :-). anyway, what does
one suggest for consistency across the manual and code base?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: do pkg_postinst() scripts need to start with "#!/bin/sh -e"?

[Trevor Woerner]

On 01/09/15 08:42, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
>>   more manual pedantry -- dev manual, section 5.3.16, suggests:
>>
>>  A post-installation function has the following structure:
>>
>>      pkg_postinst_PACKAGENAME() {
>>      #!/bin/sh -e
>>      # Commands to carry out
>>      }
>>
>> except that every example of a pkg_postinst() script i've ever seen
>> does not contain that initial hash-bang line, so the manual should
>> at least be reworded to be consistent with the code base.
>   i take it back, i just ran across this example in base-passwd.bb:
>
> pkg_postinst_${PN}-update () {
> #!/bin/sh
> if [ -n "$D" ]; then
>         exit 0
> fi
> ${sbindir}/update-passwd
> }
>
> which (naturally) doesn't use the "-e" option :-). anyway, what does
> one suggest for consistency across the manual and code base?

Let me be the first (of many, no doubt!) to suggest:

#!/bin/bash


*ducks* :-)

Re: do pkg_postinst() scripts need to start with "#!/bin/sh -e"?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Trevor Woerner wrote:

> On 01/09/15 08:42, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >>   more manual pedantry -- dev manual, section 5.3.16, suggests:
> >>
> >>  A post-installation function has the following structure:
> >>
> >>      pkg_postinst_PACKAGENAME() {
> >>      #!/bin/sh -e
> >>      # Commands to carry out
> >>      }
> >>
> >> except that every example of a pkg_postinst() script i've ever seen
> >> does not contain that initial hash-bang line, so the manual should
> >> at least be reworded to be consistent with the code base.
> >   i take it back, i just ran across this example in base-passwd.bb:
> >
> > pkg_postinst_${PN}-update () {
> > #!/bin/sh
> > if [ -n "$D" ]; then
> >         exit 0
> > fi
> > ${sbindir}/update-passwd
> > }
> >
> > which (naturally) doesn't use the "-e" option :-). anyway, what does
> > one suggest for consistency across the manual and code base?
>
> Let me be the first (of many, no doubt!) to suggest:
>
> #!/bin/bash
>
>
> *ducks* :-)

  "you're a funny guy, sully ... i'll kill you last." :-)

on a serious note, however, the documentation really should agree with
the code, one way or the other, someone can just pick a standard and
go with that. onward ...

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================