bash-isms in packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
recently i linked /usr/bin/zsh to /bin/sh and have a few comments as a
o why is /bin/sh provided by the bash package? there are other
shells that work just fine (or better in some respects) as /bin/sh
o why don't any other shells act as alternatives for /bin/sh?
o i have begun to discover that because of this assumption that
/bin/sh is bash (which is, IMO, wrong), a number of packages are therefore
dependent on bash for any scripting they perform. One example is apache's
init.d script (which i have reported as a bug)
o also, most debian/rules files also appear to make this assumption.
they try to do something like
which of course fails if any shell other than bash is /bin/sh.
although i must admit that i have not read through the policy.html files,
i find nothing saying that it is okay to make /bin/sh scripts that use
bash features. if makefiles are going to do this then they need to
along similar lines, it doesn't make sense to me to have bash's priority
as "required". it's definitely, "important", but according to debian
required means necessary for proper functioning of the system -- which bash
obviously is not. /bin/sh is, but other shells can provide that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .