Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

[Marvin Renich <mrvn@renich.org>]

* Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> [061123 06:56]:
> 
> But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
> and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
> announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh,
> pdksh ..., if it uses those shells special features.
> 
> Jari
> 

Making an exception like this is not a good idea, and is not necessary.
If it is decided that allowing bash to be replaced by one of a short
list of other shells is a good idea, then make each shell in the list
Provide: almost-posix-shell (or something) and make almost-posix-shell
essential (can a virtual package be essential?).  Or make a real package
almost-posix-shell that depends on bash | dash | ....

I have no particular opinion on the bash/dash/* issue, but making policy
conflict with itself or have unnecessary special cases is bad.

In fact, you could remove the whole issue of listing specific features
required of /bin/sh from the policy if you make a real package
almost-posix-shell, place the documentation of what can be expected of
it in the package, and replace bash by almost-posix-shell in the
"essential" list.

This doesn't, of course, do anything to help the issue of ensuring the
non-bugginess (w.r.t. requirements of almost-posix-shell) of the shells
that almost-posix-shell depends on, but it simplifies policy and moves
the details into a single location.

...Marvin