On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 07:09:08PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:41:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> (04/04/2011): > > > > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important > > > > is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when > > > > it's used in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to > > > > be changed. > > > What is the most obvious reason to degrade bash to Priority: important? > > > (I can understand shell maintainers would like to get bash out of > > > their way, but how many (other) people really want to get rid of it?) > > Anybody doing development for embedded systems. :) > Which of those people don't also want to get rid of dash and coreutils > and use busybox instead? They probably all want to do this. But while removing dash and coreutils from Essential is probably not practical at present, removing just bash would still go a long way to help since that's at least /one/ of these packages for which we would have a contract saying Debian supports removing it. If the package gets pulled into your environment as a dependency, you know what dependency to fix. If the package is pulled in because it's Essential and you want to remove it, you have to constantly inspect the system to make sure nothing is using it. -- 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/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature