Re: bashisems in maintainer scripts.
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:40:49PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:41:26AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >> Imho it would be a worthy goal in the long run to make bash
> >> non-essential (a first step would be to make all maintainer-scripts
> >> using /bin/sh posix-compliant, a second-step to make scripts using
> >> /bin/bash posix-compliant), but I suppose I'm alone in this.
> > Some questions:
> > Why do you want to disallow maintainers to use some more convenient bash
> > features?
> > How do you plan to make an essential package non-essential without
> > breaking anything?
> > Would you really be able to remove bash? Similar to initrd-tools'
> > dependency on dash, every package maintainer would always be allowed to
> > depend on bash when he wants to use bash in his scripts. This is
> > perfectly legal, and any maintainer is allowed to tag a wishlist bug
> > asking for using a posix-compliant shell instead of bash as "wontfix".
> That is not completely correct, if bash was not essential anymore it
> would not be possible to use it in maintainer scripts. (Even a
> pre-dependency is not strong enough for .config or .postrm)
A pre-dependency is sufficient for a preinst.
A normal dependency is sufficient for a postinst, prerm or postrm
(except for the purge phase).
For further explanations, please read section 7.2 of your policy.
> cu andreas
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed