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

Re: Moving bash from essential/required to important?



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: pgpbfvZ1mdqDt.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: