Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash (part two)
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:09:59PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
> 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.
Patches will be considered.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/