Re: bash essential (was: Perl essential ?)
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
Reply to: