Re: bashims in debian/rules
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Stupid question: May a virtual package have the "essential" flag?
If the answer is "no", and this is the *only* (technical) reason why we do
not have a virtual package named "posix-shell" to satisfy dependencies on
/bin/sh, then we should consider bash as non-essential.
The Debian FAQ says this about virtual packages:
Debian uses a "virtual" package system to allow system administrators
to choose (or let users choose) their favorite tools when there are
two or more that provide the same basic functionality, yet satisfy
package dependency requirements without specifying a particular
package.
This suggests that if we want to support other shells as /bin/sh, we
could be using the update-alternatives method, unless, of course, we
think that /bin/bash and another POSIX shell do not provide the same
*basic* functionality.
This also suggests that dependencies[*] on a particular package are a bad
thing, depending on any package providing the same *basic* functionality
should be enough.
[*] Yes, this text refers to binary dependencies, but source
dependencies (debian/rules) are also bad when they are gratuitous.
Of course, bash is still essential, but if we ever want to remove this
flag (allowing a virtual package to be essential), we want to think of it
carefully *now* and discourage the use of /bin/bash as we already do for
/usr/bin/gawk or /usr/bin/mawk (in favour of /usr/bin/awk).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNGbyAiqK7IlOjMLFAQGOAwQAtkFuanL4CHrJqB6AtW7M1cKVAhS2bdM4
dzhuKthaHvIWk6eVIJ5ZSk1B4cqi+QhjOR/pm5YEjF+VTC+Qggxl/XQubVMmwFBJ
LCxhYKEPCQS+6wAJhYYa1eVBdr1lOzCkMrDaHeae+pHR12TrJ+P39w/vp/lipOE9
rL8Ivk00HnA=
=2Whr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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: