Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 6 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...] the properties assigned to an essential package are such that
> reversing the flag, and making the package non-essential, entails
> effort (maybe a lot),
Please, note that *nobody* said it will not take effort.
Just that there is a clear disagreement between you and me in the amount
of effort we think it would be needed. You think it would be a lot of
effort. I don't think it would be so difficult.
Probably the lintian laboratory would be the ideal way to know quickly how
many packages would need a Depends: bash line. Maybe there are much less
than packages already having libc6 in the Depends line ;-)
> and should only
> be undertaken for compeelling reasons.
Well, when we think that something is the right thing to do, we just do
it, regardless of the effort it takes.
Switching to FHS, for example, will take a lot of effort, and the
distribution will not be technically "better" (in the sense that packages
work "better") the day we are FHS-compliant. However, we know it is the
right thing to do and we will do it.
> The fact that we are having this passionate debate indicates that the
> reasons have not been as compelling as desired.
Well, to me, the fact that we are having this passionate debate indicates
that perhaps (I'm just wondering) you would not like very much the idea of
putting a Depends: bash field in some of your packages. I don't have any
problem with this, really. I will never tell you "you are not allowed to
use a required package", it would be silly on my part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org