Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I stand corrected, then. If mawk/awk was not the package from
> whome the essential flag was removed, which was it then?
procps, at least.
Did we promise implicitly that /bin/ps was always in the system?
It seems we didn't.
> 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.
I was talking about bo, when base-files did not depend on awk yet.
For years we have shipped a system in which all awk versions could be
removed, since none of them was essential, but we have not heard any
horror stories about the lack of a working awk, at least I don't remember
any. I think that the reason for this is that mawk was required, and
people usually do not remove required packages just for fun.
If we ever make bash non-essential, and we do it right (i.e. like Raul
explained it would have to be done), I guess people will not even notice
that bash became non-essential as long as it continues to be a required
package.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNcYjpyqK7IlOjMLFAQEnjAQAoSnT5fBKlWrO9aG3Krj+Tahj51cSg8SQ
N/2qbLgZz5E5vG5Gotv/gzAL/EWmCiW2TYcD7+sGxyYF3FqxWXL9B6yfRM9xaTaR
BXR8NB/qg99XoO2tTSatISbAVg4YfsniKUgP2wevibFgpDjegzkCgs7qsHYJQhpM
u8ITr/Redxo=
=RX6u
-----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: