Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
>>>>> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> 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.
I think you misunderstood. The keyword is "non-interactive", as in replacing
shell scripts with Perl/Python/Whatever. FWIW, I disagree with Bill. I do
find myself rewriting many of shell scripts with python when they get
bigger. However, for simple stuff like stringing together a few shell
commands, nothing beats the shell.
Ganesan
--
Ganesan Rajagopal
Reply to: