On ke, 2011-04-06 at 16:37 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release > cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
OK, so assuming anything is to be done about this at all, here's what I suggest: * add a lintian test that detects scripts that are needlessly #!/bin/bash according to checkbashisms; the test can't be extremely reliable, but would probably be good enough * get project consensus on whether bash should remain essential or not (so far my reading of this thread indicates it is inconclusive); if there is no consensus, stop here * add lintian test for packages that contain bash scripts but don't declare a dependency on bash * inform the project of bash losing essentialness (mail to d-d-a) * do a mass bug filing on all packages that a) contain bash scripts that checkbashisms confirms have bashisms b) do not depend on bash * do another mass bug filing on all packages that contain bash scripts that checkbashisms does not think contain any bashisms * wait some months for package maintainers to fix their packages * NMU all packages that have not been fixed Opinions? I assume it would be the release team's decision about bash essentialness? -- Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software): http://www.branchable.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1302187274.2441.34.ca...@havelock.liw.fi