On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the > policy should take the shells as special case, because the > sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are > no viable alternative implementation of Perl which is in essential, likewise > for the rest. Why should shells be a special case and all the other things mentioned by SusV/POSIX are not? Why do we not want users to have the ability to substitute a different ls, a different du, a different cp, a different cat, a different grep? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part