Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential
>>>>> "Siggy" == Siggy Brentrup <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I agree we want to move the default /bin/sh to /bin/dash.
>> However I'm failing to understand why we want dash to be
>> essential. If I'm not using dash as my /bin/sh why do I need
Siggy> So you are complaining about a small package (installed
Siggy> size 224) becoming essential while forcing the embedded ppl
Siggy> to work around a monster (installed size 1236); numbers
Siggy> taken from my Ubuntu laptop where both are essential, I
Siggy> hope only for a limited period of time.
I don't get any complaint about /bin/dash being the default system shell from my mail.
Nor do you see me complaining about having /bin/sh scripts be posixly correct.
>> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere
>> independent of what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's
>> not obvious to me.
Siggy> As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with
Siggy> you, but bashism has been a cuss word for years before
I don't understand how this has anything to do with anything I said.
Siggy> Maybe "posixly-correct-shell" would be a better name.
Siggy> Summing up you suggest making a virtual package -
No. I suggest a package with no files but with pre-depends and the
essential flag. I don't think a virtual package would work correctly
at a technical level, although I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong.
Siggy> it's called - essential. While I think I grok your
Siggy> intentions, I doubt dpkg will follow, please read
Read that long ago and read that word for word just now.
Can you help me understand what I'm missing?
I don't see how what I'm proposing would violate that.
>> I really don't mind if we go forward with the current proposal.
>> However, I think I and a lot of other people would appreciate
>> clarity, so far not expressed, about why dash needs to be
Siggy> See debian-policy cited above.
Again, please help me understand how what I propose would violate policy.