Re: Essentiality of Bash
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:45:15 +0200, "Bernhard R. Link"
<brlink@debian.org> wrote:
>* Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> [100626 14:07]:
>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:27:31 -0700, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
>> >The footnote to Policy 3.5, where this is written out?
>>
>> Ah, so this is the same as the no-circular-dependency rule, dumping
>> extra error proneness and extra thoughtweight on all developers
>
>Please, try to be a bit more fair. Having people not need to specify
>dependencies is really not the solution that "dumps extra error
>proneness and extra thoughtweight" on the developers.
Imagine an embedded system that doesn't have bash for some reason and
a local admin wanting to install a package containing /bin/bash
scripts. This can be done given the current situation, but leads to
subsequent failure.
>I'm personally all in favor for making the "hard to deinstall"
>and "not needed in dependencies" different things
Agreed.
>If you read the second paragraph it also gives a reason that has nothing
>at all to do with making it easier for software [1]: If there are no
>dependencies, essential stuff can just move between packages or have
>packages renamed.
How often do we do that?
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: