Re: bash should not be essential
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
James Troup:
> How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
> multiple possibilities?
Having a virtual package tagged as essential.
> 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.
I think this is not true. Virtual packages allow that.
We could create an essential package named "posix-shell".
GNU bash and any other POSIX shell will provide it.
If (currently) virtual packages are not (technically) allowed to be
essential, I think we have a work-around: we could choose *any* essential
package and make it to pre-depend on "posix-shell", this way at least one
posix-shell should be installed to satisfy the dependency. The end result
would be the same.
As I said, if the only problem is of *technical* type, we should start
considering bash as non-essential *now* and discourage the use of
#!/bin/bash scripts by policy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNGteXiqK7IlOjMLFAQHF/gP/dPjuvYzUPXZ6C804MpWuBESOzjM3AQkK
Z0HEsBS75kMqVgg2vceXjD8zqzCAOH0k7MSo0UdcymhD0OD9VHvCLuOm3MjpOWAZ
AZv3HVQ8oY8PBJ1nOy4YHVPlr1k2zEb3GA7rX2xnX4yHDa0Rz6SXxXyDp+IDKmFe
qQbN2yEiv+A=
=dCqc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: