Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
Santiago Vila <email@example.com> wrote:
> The day we have another shell which provides the /bin/sh symlink, we would
> have to analyze again the reasons why bash has to be essential. I
> guess we would end up in a circular argument like this:
> The obvious way to break this circle is to make bash non-essential.
> If none of the awk's we provide is essential, why has bash to be
Yep, that's the obvious way to break this circle (and a large number
of debian systems).
But, in and of itself, it's not the right way. The right way would
involve a way of keeping our implicit promise that we won't break
people's packages which depend on bash.
And the first stage of doing this right involves Guy's update to the
And since there's no rush on this, I think that we should wait till
slink is released before tackling the next step.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com