On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/30/18 12:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 08:15:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> It was pointed out on irc that fsck.xfs uses the 'function' keyword
>>> although it invokes /bin/sh - 'function' is a bashism. It's not needed
>>> here, so just remove it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 04a2d5d ("fsck.xfs: allow forced repairs using xfs_repair")
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Does RHEL have 'checkbashisms'?
>
> Hm, yes, Fedora & RHEL have it in devscripts-minimal.
>
> $ checkbashisms ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh
> possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 9 ('function' is useless):
> function repair2fsck_code() {
> possible bashism in ./fsck/xfs_fsck.sh line 62 ('command' with option other than -p):
> XFS_REPAIR=`command -v xfs_repair`
>
> Apparently -v is only part of "User Portability Utilities?"
>
I think so. Is it any problem? If so, I will try to find some other
way how to search in PATH.
Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
