12612 2018-03-19 10:23:44 +0000 insane.bbclass: check for bashisms in packaged scripts 2026-08-13 15:13:46 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core core unspecified All Multiple UNCONFIRMED Medium enhancement 6.99 0 JPEWhacker JPEWhacker meta.mr.watcher meta.watcher randy.macleod ross.burton stephano --- --- Yes (doc changes required) oldest_to_newest 79855 0 JPEWhacker 2018-03-19 10:23:44 +0000 Add a QA check to verify that scripts do not contain bashisms. The Debian checkbashisms.pl script already covers this sufficiently, as it can distinguish between 3 cases: 1) A script with #! /bin/sh that uses bashisms (BAD) 2) A script with #! /bin/bash that uses bashisms (OK) 3) A script with #! /bin/bash that doesn't use bashisms (OK) At a minimum, an ERROR should be produced if #1 is encountered. We could also issue a WARNING for #3, but that is not as much of an issue. 79856 1 ross.burton 2018-03-19 10:27:04 +0000 IMHO, far too invasive/slow to run on every parse. oe-core has verify-bashisms which will run all shell bits in recipes through checkbashisms. 79857 2 JPEWhacker 2018-03-19 11:34:54 +0000 Sorry, maybe it wasn't clear, this was intended to be a QA check for on-target installed files, not bitbake metadata scripts (which is what verify-bashisms appears to be checking?). I found https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8851 did that also evaluate the performance impact of a QA check (I didn't find anything like that in the comments)? If not, I can do some evaluation to see what the impact would be on the do_package_qa step. 79934 3 ross.burton 2018-03-22 10:25:44 +0000 Ah, right. Reopening. 96951 4 randy.macleod 2023-10-24 14:24:50 +0000 Bulk move from 4.99 or 0.00 to 5.99 106524 5 randy.macleod 2026-08-13 15:13:46 +0000 We could put the code in but leave it disabled by default for developers to use as needed.