Re: /bin/sh - /bin/bash
Let me try to summarize this discussion:
1. Currently, /bin/sh is symlinked to /bin/bash on _every_ new installed
Debian system, since /bin/sh is installed with the bash package, which is
in our base system.
Thus, I wouldn't consider it as a bug if a package (currently) uses
/bin/sh as bash. (We might change this, perhaps.)
2. FSSTND (and FHS draft) do not require /bin/sh to be a "bash". They
also mention ksh as possible replacement for /bin/sh. However, our pdksh
installs in /usr/bin/ksh which one should not symlink to /bin/sh if /usr
is on a different partition (otherwise, the default shell would not be
available when the system has problems and is started without /usr).
3. In which situation would /bin/sh be another shell than bash? AFAICS,
this can only be if the sysadmin has manually re-linked /bin/sh to another
So the real question is if we support step 3. If we would do so, we would
have to write down a list about which shells are supported as /bin/sh, so
that the maintainers could check their scripts against these shells. Only
these shells would be "supported" as replacement for /bin/sh .
Note, that this would be a policy change which would cause a lot of work
for our maintainers. So we should only make it, if really necessary.
Please don't file any bug reports concerning this until we have a
resolution of this topic.
(Anyways, what's the connection to debmake/debstd then?)
Should we move this discussion to debian-policy now?
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian is looking email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .