[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bash-isms in packages


>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 (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 
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

Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv


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: