Re: PW#5-13: New virtual packages
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
[snip]
> With the policy on POSIX shells coming up, would a virtual package `sh',
> or `posix-shell', be appropriate? I think bash and ash could provide it,
> and possibly others, too (ksh? zsh?). I also think the link /bin/sh
> could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives' system, with the
> `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor requirements) having
> the highest priority.
As long as bash is tagged `Essential: Yes', I don't think we need special
dependencies for posix-shell.
However, managing /bin/sh through alternatives sounds like a good idea to
me. But I would want to wait for this until the majority of packages using
/bin/sh is bashism-free :-) (that is, I would not recommend to do this for
"hamm").
Thanks,
Chris
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
! ___; schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
Reply to: