Re: Question about "Depends: bash"
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> > I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
> >
> > - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
> > - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
> > - Improving the overall awaress of shells
>
> I don't care about the "awareness" of shells, no.
>
> If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you
> are asking lots of *extra* effort.
To my knowledge, I haven't or then there is a mixup somewhere.
> I don't care about making anything sh-agnostic. bash is just a
> language; dash is just a language. We don't insist that our C programs
> be C-compiler-agnostic; we don't insist that lisp or scheme programs be
> dialect-agnostic; why should we insist this for shell programs?
I'm not the right person to explain this. I would rather compare this
to the C compiler warnings:
- I don't care. The code compiles. Right?
Or saomeone who takes another approach:
- Oh, I dind't know that there were warnings having never used -Wall
--pedantic. Give me a week and I'll fix those.
> If a maintainer wants to make a script that works with dash and posh and
> busybox, they can do that too.
>
> They can even have a debconf option that
> asks the user which #! line to use.
The point is to make things generic. Like C which can be made to
compile in multiple platforms.
> None of this requires this obsessive nattering about /bin/sh.
Obsessive? The problem is not big. I haven't encountered any breakege
by using /bin/dash instead of /bin/bash in a year. It proves that the
maintainer scripts are already in a good shape. There is no big
"converting work" needed anywhere.
What would be good is that The Policy should encourage this practise
(like many maintainers do see value in this as demonstrated in their
scripts) instead of the current wording which discourages it.
Of of the problmes in this path is the status of bash in Essential,
which implies all the rest. Fortunately many maintainers are
professionals and see things from wider sh-perspective.
Jari
Reply to: