Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
Jari Aalto <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Russ, I'm CC'ing - please tell if you'd rather read the list.
I read the list (both of them); no need to cc.
> I agree. Your suggestion solves this for all parties. The policy stays
> intact, but the underlying dependencies need an improvement. The problem
> I see in current situation is that
> Packages' dependencies tend to be implicit. Sometimes it would
> be more better to be explicit and not optimize dependencies away
> with the assumption that a feature is provided by "essential".
I think you've missed the point of Essential. Or maybe you're questioning
the point of Essential.
Anyway, either way, I think this is far afield from what I'm trying to
accomplish with this patch, so I'm going to ask that you put together a
separate proposal and pursue this separately rather than try to tackle any
of this as part of the sh policy. We can always remove the paranthetical
later; the larger changes that you're proposing are mostly in a different
To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck. Basically,
you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk, where it's not
explicitly essential and can be handled by something akin to alternatives,
but given that this will require modifying all packages that use bash
explicitly and there's little incentive for maintainers to do this unless
it's made RC (and I have a hard time imagining that would happen), I don't
think the transition is likely to happen. It's a lot of work, and the
amount of gain doesn't seem to warrant it.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>