[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh

>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

 Santiago> What about making bash a required but non-essential
 Santiago> package, in the long term?
	I don't like that. There are too many packages that have taken
 the implied promise thatbash shall always be on the system. The
 essential flag also has meaning for the package maintainence system
 and APT.

	What do we gain by demoting bash from essential to required?
 We immediately create busy work for people to add Bash on the depends
 line; we make it easier for people to remove bash and get their
 systrems into a broken state (since so many packages depend on bash
 in the first place). 

	I think we shoulkd think long and hard before ever demoting
 anything from essential. And have darned good reasons for doing
 it. So far, I have not really ehard technical reasons convincing
 enough to take the plunge.


 "A car is just a big purse on wheels." Johanna Reynolds
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: