On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:37:28 +0100, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote: ... > Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be > off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a > much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list > > Summary: > > 1775 files > 621 packages ... > Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release > cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all. > > Opinions? I think you've demonstrated exactly why we should do this -- at present, since bash is essential, it would seem that many people have decided that it's easiest to just use /bin/bash for their scripts, regardless of whether they need it or not, which is fine on a full blown Debian system but creates a lot of unnecessary work for EmDebian folks. It wouldn't surprise me if the need to add a bash dependency would provoke many of the developers of the packages in question to reexamine those scripts, realise that in many cases they could be trivially POSIX-ised, and so reduce that number further. That'll not happen if we don't make bash non-essential. On the other hand, my perspective is that of a crusty old git who had to port stuff to all sorts of not-quite-POSIX systems for years, so I may just be having a "youngsters need to be taught proper discipline" moment ;-) Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
Attachment:
pgpHIJ7b_kykj.pgp
Description: PGP signature