Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 4 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Santiago> Lots of scripts use "ps", but procps is not essential.
> Santiago> Please, Luis or Manoj, answer to my previous question: Why
> Santiago> do you talk about "implied promises" in the case of bash
> Santiago> and not in the case of ps?
> So, you are advocating we go back and make ps essential?
No, I'm just saying that procps stopped being essential because if you
ever remove it, the system would not suddenly become FUBAR, but instead
you could recover it easily by using the existing essential packages
(dpkg, dselect, etc.).
Packages are made essential, or demoted from his essential status, for
this reason, not because of "implied promises".
> If we made one mistake, we should make another?
I don't know what you mean here, but I would ask you to be consistent.
If you think we have broken a promise with procps, please start another
thread about restoring procps his essential flag.
If you think we did not broke any promise with procps, I would ask you to
explain why there is a promise to keep bash essential and there was not a
promise to keep procps essential too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org