Re: bash should not be essential

[James Troup <J.J.Troup@comp.brad.ac.uk>]

Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

[ stuff snipped to get down to the core issue ]

What I want to see answered is this:

How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
multiple possibilities?

You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as
essential, otherwise people can totally hose their system by removing
all bourne shells, and if there isn't an essential one you can't
assume the presence of a POSIX bourne shell for the purpose of
dependencies.

So how do you propose to remove the essential tag from bash and yet
still have an essential POSIX bourne shell?

You say you don't want to put another POSIX bourne shell in place of
bash in base and tagged as essential.  So what, exactly is the plan?

[ Everything else flows from this.  This is essentially what Manoj
asked, and also what I asked Stormcrow, but neither of you have
answered it ]

-- 
James