Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +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 last 2 lines:
> Personnally I rather look forward for the day where the use of
> shells for non-interactive task is deprecated in Debian.
That is the day I'll fork Debian :P. If Debian ever departs
so far from its UNIX roots, then it would be mostly useless windows
clone in my eyes.
"Hello again, Peabody here..." Mister Peabody
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C