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

Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash (part two)

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Why?


On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:38:01AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If the goal is to make *bash* removable, then I can understand why that
> would be helpful to some people since it's the heavier shell by far.  None
> of what you're talking about in this subthread actually advances that goal,
> however.  The blocker for removing bash is that today, packages invoking
> /bin/bash are not required by Policy to depend on it.  And if they did, we
> might find that there are Priority: required packages using it, which
> there's no policy against, making the exercise more or less pointless.
> Oh yeah - libpam0g is one, and libpam0g is transitively essential.

Those packages can be fixed if we want a nice, lean core system.

Reply to: