Re: bash-isms in packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>maintainers can just assume that it [bash] exists, and write scripts
>that depend on it.
...
>[cut] since bash is in fact
>required by policy (as I recall), and sh is linked to bash, it really
>doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, I could find nothing in debian-policy 2.1.3.0 (the
most recent I found) that says anything about bash being required.
Of course, it is required...but only because the maintainer gave it
that priority.
And there is a difference between writing scripts that depend on bash
and assuming that /bin/sh is bash.
>I would say that trying to remove bash from a Debian system, and
>circumvent the sh link is probably just a bad idea.
Circumventing the sh link isn't all that bad. I've been doing it for a
while now and all of the problems that arose were because people used
bash-isms. In it's current state, trying to completely remove bash from
a debian system is probably a bad idea -- but there's no reason someone
shouldn't be able to do it, and the current packaging setup is the only
thing
that prevents on from doing so (easily).
- --
Justus justus@andrew.cmu.edu
Tenchi Muyou: Because some of us still think women over 14 are sexy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM10LmOkMcQ9vaI8hAQGgDwP+P10poggYDGO7tMWP8Cj3wbvb/HAzSWBy
sLG0zRMSa1HL0ekz2guQDCSfb1duka5RwsXxFqw1aK47J6lr+SCEU6uQ2e26FDNN
/f6tKa/+FgtiVCy1jvXKj9X6bi91d5CgBKqleKHD3Pscm0FjOp3VV8/wizjTyqEV
g49AoADB7sc=
=9CpP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: