Re: Moving bash from essential/required to important?
On ti, 2011-04-05 at 08:52 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm re-running the scripts, which will probably take a few hours, and
> will report results when they're done. If you notice any problems with
> the scripts, please tell me ASAP.
The new scripts look also in maintainer scripts.
New results: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2.list
Summary:
4450 files
973 packages
I further ran checkbashisms on every file in bash2.list, and classified
files accordingly to the exit code: exit code 0 means it's not a bash
script. Result: http://files.liw.fi/temp/reallybash.list
Summary:
1787 files classified as bash scripts
2663 not bash scripts
Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be
off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a
much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list
Summary:
1775 files
621 packages
Assuming I didn't do anything stupid in these scripts or in counting the
results, it looks like it's a reasonably small set of packages that
would need to add a bash dependency. However, that would require all the
#!/bin/bash scripts that don't actually need to be bash to be changed
(and tested etc).
Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
Opinions?
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
Reply to: