Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
I stnad corrected, then. If mawk/awk was not the package from
whome the essential flag was removed, which was it then?
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <email@example.com> writes:
Santiago> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Santiago> On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Santiago> I don't buy the idea of an "implied promise". Other
Santiago> essential packages have been downgraded to required, and
Santiago> nobody *ever* talked about "implied promises". Yes, bash is
Santiago> *currently* more important than those packages, but the
Santiago> difference here is only cuantitative, not qualitative.
>> Please refresh my memory. The only package so downgreaded, in
>> case you have forgotten, was made into a virtual package that also
>> was a dependency of an essential package; and the reasons for doing
>> so were that other packages could provide it.
>> Does not look like no one raised a fuss. To all intents and
>> practices, an awk package is essential.
Santiago> No awk package was ever essential, at least not in Debian 1.3.1.
Santiago> No awk package was *downgraded* from essential to non-essential.
Santiago> However, I have not heard any horror stories about a
Santiago> package to break because of awk not being in the
Santiago> system. Why not? Because mawk was "Priority: required".
No, because base-files, an essential package, depends on
awk. Dependencies of essential packages are paid a great deal
of attention to.
Four principal things increase in the man who is respectful and
always honours his elders - length of life, good looks, happiness and
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org