Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> wrote:
> > The fact that 90% of scripts *already* use /bin/sh and not /bin/bash
> > *proves* that bash is not as essential (in the *second* meaning) as you
>
> No, it does not. Because bash is /bin/sh and we've not yet resolved
> that issue.
I'm afraid I am being misunderstood again.
I just mean that the essentialness of the *current* bash.deb package is
due *mainly* to the fact that it is the package that provides the /bin/sh
symlink.
Only as a mental experiment: we could make bash non-essential right now if
we wanted, just make /bin/sh to be a real file instead of a symlink, and
just create another binary package from the bash source containing *just*
/bin/bash. We then could call "posix-shell" the one containing /bin/sh and
make it essential, and the other containing /bin/bash would be the
bash.deb package and would be just required (of course, Depends lines
would have to be added every time /bin/bash is used directly, etc. etc.).
No, I'm not proposing to do that, not even for the distribution after the
slink, the alternatives mechanism is a much better approach and we should
probably not waste 426984 bytes in that way by making a real file from a
symlink, so please consider it just a mental experiment.
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNcYe+iqK7IlOjMLFAQGCBQP/Q4Hvpa/BVO6Gl4Y3dMtw7yVugGzrSPwY
7PYTNzmM8HP2kc2P5ZLVuAGtKnkvUYrpQSdZPAytXn6+Jw+/Q5AWvcjtJnWzZosh
NtJjKJS2fHzJMBNuz2w+kCZQT/dbt3pqJ6HzCuLvKdubd6f9hm+BWdcvtl7KAGcO
e3+VuH8Udzs=
=F36+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: