Re: bash essential (was: Perl essential ?)
Marc,
It increases disk usage. Another ~16 bytes is totally unacceptable.
You can tell I'm kidding here, right? ;)
Regards,
Alex.
---
PGP/GPG Fingerprint:
EFD1 AC6C 7ED5 E453 C367 AC7A B474 16E0 758D 7ED9
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/CM>CC/IT d- s:+ a16 C++(++++)>$ UL++++>$ P--- L++>++$ E+ W+(-) N+ o? K? w---()
!O !M !V PS+(++)>+ PE-(--) Y+>+ PGP t+>++ !5 X-- R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI(+) D++
G>+++ e--> h! !r y>+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:40:28 +0000, Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >Yes. The result of that policy is that bashisms must have
> >#!/bin/bash, not that dependencies on bash must be explicity. It will
> >be very easy to change lintian to report that if bash becomes
> >non-essential.
>
> You have a point here.
>
> >> btw, I don't think that having lintian barf on packages that
> >> explicitly depend on essential packages is a good idea. That a package
> >> is essential today does not mean that it is essential tomorrow. I
> >> would consider allowing explicit Depends: on essential packages a good
> >> idea. These Depends: do no harm at the moment, and will prevent bugs
> >> tomorrow.
> >
> >True. But there would be a lot of them...
>
> What does having a redundant Depends: hurt?
>
> Greetings
> Marc
>
> --
> -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
> Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
> Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
> Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: