On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:53:05 +0100,
Klemens Nanni <kn@openbsd.org> wrote:
> 
> 14.11.2024 19:46, Kirill A. Korinsky пишет:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:00:40 +0100,
> > Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> That does make it sound a bit like it's ZeroSSL-only. How about adding
> >> a wiki link?
> >>
> >> Note that acme.sh uses ZeroSSL as the certificate authority by default.
> >> See https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/wiki/Server if you would
> >> like to use Let's Encrypt or another CA.
> >>
> >> With that or similar, OK sthen.
> >>
> > 
> > Thanks for cleaner wording. An updated tgz.
> 
> HOMEPAGE is set by DIST_TUPLE already.
> 
> One script has /bin/bash as shebang.
> 
> Another makes our sh(1) and ksh(1) fail whereas bash(1) is happy.
> 
> Upstream uses shellcheck(1) in their GitHub flows, you could add something
> similar in a do-test target, if you like.
> https://github.com/acmesh-official/acme.sh/blob/75b4bb306b7967dd480f70ef7e2d61947adabe98/.github/workflows/shellcheck.yml#L29
> 
> At a mininum, I'd syntax check all scripts we install;  this seems like a
> good opportunity to find subtle differences between our sh(1) and others:
> 
> do-test:
> 	find ${WRKSRC} -type f -name \*.sh -exec sh -n {} \;
> 

Thanks for review, addressed all changes with exception of
deploy/synology_dsm.sh which uses /bin/bash: this script works only on
Synology devices and I doubt that it's possible to make it work outside it.
Thus, I think that nuke this script is bad idea because as soon as we do it,
we should check all almost 200 scripts.

Instead I'd like to import it as is, and wait reports.

Ok?

-- 
wbr, Kirill

• acme.sh.tgz (4K)