Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> writes:
>
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit requirement
> > for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages "need" bash to make
> > them work. someone may then provide a patch to "make bash go away".
>
> This would conflict with Policy 3.5, which says that packages should not
> depend on any essential package unless they need a specific version.
> Policy shouldn't contradict itself, so I think this would require further
> discussion and justification for making an exception for bash.
>
> In practice, I don't think it would ever be possible to remove any feature
> from the set of essential packages in Debian.
I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
policy should take the shells as special case, because the
sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
no viable alternative implementation of Perl which is in essential, likewise
for the rest.
But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh,
pdksh ..., if it uses those shells special features.
Jari
Reply to: