Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr

[Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>]

> Scenario A: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
> has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.
> 
> Scenario B: Script works on bash and ash, which are the two main shells anyone
> has a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian.

Why on earth should this be so?  Is saying "The standard shell
interpreter `/bin/sh' can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible shell,
if `echo -n' does not generate a newline." yet another of Policy's
arrogant lies?

How are users to know that this is a farce?  It's only a farce, mind
you, because of people who think compliance is a bore.

When I joined Debian, bash was the only choice for /bin/sh.  Back then,
one would have said, "Script works on bash, which is the only shell
anyone as a reason to use as /bin/sh on Debian, and we don't support
anything else."

Now, those poor people who read Policy or debconf messages might come to
the silly conclusion that they could make pdksh or zsh their /bin/sh.
Or perhaps they will obtain a copy of ksh93 and make that their /bin/sh.
Perhaps that are even forced to do that to support some horribly-behaved
commercial software.

Some developers want our users to have this choice.  Others don't have
this as a priority.

> It happens to be a lot of work to make something comply with the letter of
> POSIX's minimal specification for /bin/sh, especially since it seems to

Then you'll appreciate that I did the work for you and gave you a
POSIX-compliant alternative in the bug report.

> be intent on becoming more minimal as time passes, and since it doesn't
> seem to worry itself too much with existing BSD or Linux systems.

I don't get that impression.  POSIX actually seems to be improving with
time.

> It's also a lot of work to do heaps of other useful things in Debian: make
> it release faster, improve it's security, have all the neat new GUI apps
> get a similar degree of reliability as our server programs tend to have,

I'm sorry; is woody not released because I'm not spending my time
working on GUI apps?

> and a bunch of other things. I can see obvious benefits from the latter,
> I can't see *any* benefits from being as obsessive as you're being with
> the former.

Mind-boggling, that.

> Well, no, that's not really true. I don't mind having random scripts
> work on random other Unices, that's neat. And I wouldn't overly mind if
> you'd taken the time to do a little polite write up of why "kill -9"
> isn't something we should do, post it to -devel along with citations
> people can easily check to the appropriate standards, and then file
> minor or wishlist bugs about it.

Why do you think the bug severity levels are lies too?  It violates a
must directive.  If you really believe that the 'must' is a typo, why
don't you reopen the bug and reassign it to debian-policy where that
"typo" can be corrected?

> Because, to be blunt, there are a million things that're a million
> times more important than whether you can use something other than bash
> as /bin/sh.

No, it's the absolute most important thing in the two universes.  Have you
ever had need to put Debian on a small amount of flash, and wanted to be
as space-efficient as possible?  If you have only packages that use
#!/bin/sh scripts, you can get rid of the Essential bash, and save over
400K.  If you have inside knowledge that these scripts have ashisms, you
can avoid the headaches which would plague you had you believed Debian's
policy document.

> Which is what policy is, if you ask me.

This is also probably why you think violations of 'must' directives
should get priority 'wishlist' bugs.

> No, the professionalism and commitment to excellence of Debian maintainers
> is what ensures that.

Well, since we can't get that, perhaps we should set some sort of
policy.

> Perhaps you should look again at all the packages you've been filing bugs
> against. If you make /bin/sh something else, and lots of stuff breaks,
> that's evidence that you're missing a needed feature.

No, it's evidence that stuff isn't POSIX-compliant like it claims to be.

A feature is needed just because someone uses it?  kill -9 is needed
because you don't want to type -s ?

> That's nice. In future, before filing bugs against a bunch of packages
> for something you think's a policy violation, gain a consensus on -devel
> about it first. It's a simple rule, and it prevents a lot of annoyance.

I think that you're the only one who has bothered to claim that it's not
a policy violation to violate policy.

> You'd think the people who insist on rules being followed to the letter
> would bother to read and follow them themselves, no?

Manoj told me to file bugs; I didn't get the impression that he thought
"must" was a typo.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org