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

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

> So if "essential" really means more than "will always be here, so don't 
> worry about dependencies", the policy manual should reflect that.
> As it stands, many packages have undeclared dependencies on bash.  That 
> seems to match perfectly with the semantics of an "essential" package.  
> If it's working, why change it?

Because it is not justified technically. I don't see why bash should be
treated any diferently then, say, tcsh. What is really essential for the
system is the presence of /bin/sh. Since it looks like we shall have an
alternatives for /bin/sh link, I can easily imagine systems which may not want
to have bash at all. 

Argument that many local scripts may use bash directly and expect it to be
present doesn't seem to work. I can write scripts in python, or even java 
(just kidding:) and the only thing I would have to do is install the
interpreter I need, I don't see problem with that.


Alex Y.
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+

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

Reply to: