Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <email@example.com> writes:
> On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> to work with some generic shell. The former is going to be *much*
> easier. Isn't that enough?
My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can post
a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know
alternative constructs (having learned only bashism).
Note, that I did not suggest rewriting any existing scripts, but I was
looking forward to making the need of bash more transparent that what
it is now in packages.