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-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNcdMJyqK7IlOjMLFAQHJ2gP/e0QYV5fbwGkj/lDKINuVmCY6u2PbBHuH
8hF6Ox3TLYg58NeXwEsTV5krKVmMyy7SYde3jdsubmi9FZ/IAgZRWvKp7s/xo4W1
HyNDYek23r2ol/E6AJ7TubhZst/1pssSLeHaY3C5zL3lvnYzk29x0EA9k01h8Q70
lGkjmoILHZ0=
=gD6v
-----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: