Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 5 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But, historically, we have made Bash essential. There did seem
> to be a technical reason when we did that, even if circumstances have
> changed since.
Exactly, if the circumstances change, we will need to review the technical
reasons also, as it happened with procps.
Manoj, you are investing too much energy for an hiphotetical case like
bash (which definitely will continue to be essential at least until there
is a proven and well testet alternative for /bin/sh, I think we agree on
this), but too few energy for restoring procps his essential flag. Why?
> Backwards compatibility? Because we have implied Bash is
> always going to be present, and should not yank the rug out from
> under peoples feet? Because no sufficiently good reason has ben given
> to justify us breaking the promise?
I'm surprised that you still talk about promises. Policy says nothing
about promises. The essential flag is a technical issue, not a social
issue. We want to avoid users to break their systems completely. That's
all. Making bash non-essential and adding Depends: bash lines for
packages that depend on it will not make the system easier to break,
that's for sure, you would have to use some --force flag in either case.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com