Re: Pre-Depends of #CDD#-common meta packages from cdd-common
On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 04:25:28PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 11:52:01AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 09:40:06AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > > > * bash, itself, is an Essential package, so you could just
> > > > > s:#!/bin/sh:#!/bin/bash: and not care about portability.
> > > >
> > > > Please don't.
> > >
> > > Please do. Replacing adequete languages with less flexible ones for
> > > *no reason* is stupid.
> >
> > Ahhh, but you conveniently snipped the reasons I provided.
>
> You didn't give any, except the bogus "portability" one.
You might regard it as a bogus reason, I sure don't.
I did also mention the storage-space issue, but since you neatly removed
it with your first reply to me, I've repeated it below.
> > And using
> > bashisms for *no reason* is far more stupid...
>
> No, "doing nothing", absent any reason to do something, is the
> sensible approach.
Sigh. I have provided sufficient reasons to do something. And
substituting /bin/sh for /bin/bash is doing something as well.
In both cases we're talking about a single substitution.
> > We're talking about
> > removing one bashism in a script to make it more portable
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> False. Please come back when you have some comprehension of what
> portable shell scripting means. There's a chapter in the autoconf
> manual that might clue you in.
There's portable, then there's portable. Being portable to still
developed platforms is reasonable, being portable to Unixen from 1977 is
not.
However, I do not mind at all people writing scripts that cater to old
quirks of semi-extinct platforms, but I do not think it's needed for
maintainer-scripts.
> The only platform where /bin/sh is "reliably" a posix shell is
> Debian. Deal with it.
>
> > allow it to
> > meet policy,
>
> False dilemma; more trivially accomplished by using #!/bin/bash.
Yeah, oh the horrors of having to replace command -v with which instead
of sh with bash... Oh so much less trivial.
> > and in the end allow drop-in replacement of smaller foot-print
> > shells instead of bash,
>
> Handwaving.
Far from handwaving. (In fact, I try to keep at least my right hand
very immobile at the moment, due to just managing to cut two of my
fingertips when slicing a lime...) I have a very specific use for this,
described below (and described in my original message, which you so
neatly trimmed down)...
> Please stop this pointless crusade against bash. All it can accomplish
> is to introduce bugs where previously there were none. Throwing around
> words like "portability" does not accomplish anything.
It is *NOT* a crusade against bash. I use bash as my primary shell for
all my workstations, my laptop, and my server (and my MacOS X-machine).
I'd rather be able to avoid having it installed on my embedded machine,
though. 1MB of storage doesn't matter squat on my 40GB drive on my
laptop, but it's a 32nd of the total space on my embedded device.
And I bet other Debian-developers and users trying to fit something onto
tight devices wouldn't mind either.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
Reply to: