Re: /bin/sh as an alternative
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:29:20PM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
>
> > I can't check with the original post, but personally I think that if a
> > script *does* use bash features then in addition to beginning "#!/bin/bash"
> > it should Depend: on bash. Eventually we could just have a POSIX compliant
> > shell in /bin and stop requiring bash (obviously this is a long term goal).
>
> No, packages shouldn't depend on essential packages. Almost every package
> needs bash for scripts etc. (even if it is only for {pre,post}{rm,inst}).
I should have put that better. Packages that use a POSIX shell should be
fine (no dependencies required as we should always assume there is a POSIX
shell). Packages that contain scripts that use #!/bin/bash should depend on
bash in case bash becomes a non-essential package (a POSIX-shell will always
be essential, but there is no reason to make this shell bash).
Adrian
email: adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com | Debian Linux - www.debian.org
http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable
PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
Reply to: