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

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On 23 Nov 2006 01:15:28 +0200, Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> said: 

> 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:

        No, that is a separate discussion.  Steve Langasek had an
 email where he detailed reasons why one should not depend on
 Essential packages; since it prevents moving the essential
 functionality to other packages.  And it is simple enough to see when
 maintainer scripts explicitly use bash; that is far better than
 making packages explicitly depend on  Essential packages.

        This is unlikely to change in the near term, unless there are
 compelling arguments to make  the dependency explicit (like there is
 if a package has a versioned dependency on an Essential
 package. Merely makes it easy to see which packages on th4e off
 chance that someone manages to make bash  go away at some time in the
 improbable and remote future is not going to cut the mustard.

>       In a way, Policy encourages view that listing explicit
>       dependencies is considered bad and wrong. On the contrary The

        This is exactly right.

>       policy could encourage to make things transparent; this is
>       good testing and QA methodology. Policy should not care
>       whether package announces all dependencies or that some
>       package announces only those not covered in "essential".

        I don't think that adding a clutter of Essential packages to
 the list of every single package out there adds transparency; it is
 clutter, it is redundant; and good QA practice is to abstract away
 the common dependency set and make it tacit.

It may be that your whole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: