[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I suggest removing the 

Russ has already explained why this would violate other parts of policy.

I'm interested in why we should care at all.  Perl is a far bigger space
hog than bash.

Someone somewhere told a Big Lie: "bash isn't essential to Debian".
Lots of people perhaps believe this lie, and have a Grand Quest to "make
bash go away".  What is the reason?  Why is it worth energy on the part
of *everyone else*?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: