Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Exactly, why do you think there is any rush at all on my side?
> I think I said "in the long term" in one of my first posts about this.
The way you've been describing the problem (for example: breaking the
circle where bash is essential and packages rely on bash being essential)
suggests you're thinking only about the present situation.
The proper way to break that circle is:
(*) fix scripts which require non-posix bashisms to work in /bin/sh
(*) amend policy (and possibly the bug tracking system so that we can
associate bug reports with issues) to give us a sane way of making bash
not be essential:
(*) allow bug reports to be filed against packages which have #!/bin/bash
scripts but don't Depend: on bash.
(*) Do whatever is necessary to have an essential virtual package.
(*) When all these bug reports have cleared, and we have a our
essential replacement, demote bash.
But we've not been talking about how to solve these problems, the
discussion has been about how we must break the free from bash, and
the way to do this is by making bash be not essential in unstable.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org