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
Unfortunately, I could find nothing in debian-policy 22.214.171.124 (the
most recent I found) that says anything about bash being required.
Of course, it is required...but only because the maintainer gave it
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).
Tenchi Muyou: Because some of us still think women over 14 are sexy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .