Re: bashims in debian/rules
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.
IIRC, the last time this was discussed on the lists, ash wasn't a suitable
replacement for /bin/sh because it lacked some needed (POSIX) features. If
this has been fixed, ash could provide /bin/sh instead of bash and I agree
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .