Re: bashims in debian/rules
One irritating thing about the policy is that it essentially states that
any package whose scripts contain a shell construct not found in good old
fashioned dumb Bourne shell must depend on the shell package providing that
construct...unless the shell package providing that construct is Essential.
Well, since bash is marked Essential, this basically shoots in the foot any
effort to identify bashisms as such. I think ash should be the essential
shell; especially in the wake of Bash 2.0 and its bloating featurism, it
would make our base section more streamlined if we just left it out.
I don't even use bash; my personal and root accounts use tcsh. It's not as
essential as one might think.
(Yes, I've heard the arguments about "csh programming considered harmful";
I write my shell scripts in sh or ksh, but tcsh is still my command-line
environment. But I don't presume to think that everyone should use tcsh.
Leave it in the shells section. The only shells with a claim to being
"essential" would be a minimal sh (ash, most likely) and/or csh.)
G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't do
Purdue University | if he doesn't know whether he believes
email@example.com | in it or not.
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .