Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:37:26AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > You have convinced me that in this case it's going to have to be that
> > way, so my prejudices notwithstanding. I've rationalised the pain away
> > by deciding it's no so bad as any competent programmer could see that is
> > it only tested to 190 regardless of what the standards say.
> Yeah, I do get that discomfort. I would love for Policy to be more
> accurate about what's actually happening in the archive. I just don't
> have much (any) time at the moment to try to push the wording in that
I assume that posh meets the strict definition of 10.4. And so
without actually changing policy, someone _could_ try setting /bin/sh
to be /bin/posh, and then start filing RC bugs against packages that
have scripts that break. Yes?
Given that the freeze is almost upon us, I could see how this might be
considered unfriendly, but if someone wanted to start filing bugs (at
some priority, perhaps RC, perhaps not) after Jessie ships, we could
in theory try to (slowly) move Debian to the point where enough
scripts in Debian worked under /bin/posh that it might be possible to
set it at a release goal, for some future release. Yes?
Now, this might be considered not the best use of Debian Developers'
resources, and which is why it might be considered bad manners to do
mass bug filings, particularly mass RC bug filings at this stage of
the development/release cycle.
But if individual Debian developers were to fix their own packages, or
suggest patches as non-RC bugs, there wouldn't be any real harm, and
possibly some good (especially for those people who are very much into
pedantry, and don't mind a slightly slower system --- but if a user
wants to use /bin/posh, that's an individual user's choice :-)