At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:32:53 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: > GOTO Masanori wrote: > > At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200, > > Harald Dunkel wrote: > > > >>IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at > >>all. If there is no way around this, then it should > >>work with any /bin/sh, not just bash. > > > > > > Why does "there is no way around this" lead "it should work with any > > /bin/sh"? BTW, read libc6.postinst/preinst before replying... > > If libc6 needs a shell at installation time, then > the risk for problems is higher for "bash only", > than it would be if either bash, dash, ash, busybox, > or whatever are supported. The user could use another > shell if bash doesn't work for him.
My point is: "installing debian package needs the debian base system that includes bash". Moreover it's not only glibc package issue. If you have plan to support all base packages with /bin/sh, and that makes easier installation for bootstrapping, I don't complain it. If not, I dislike to get tool/shell limitation for postinst/preinst from the point of maintainance view. > What I do not like in Debian are package dependencies that > could be avoided. They make Debian more complex than it > could be. And libc6 is such a fundamental package that its > dependencies can become very painfull. I guess you're talking about bootstrapping (actually you didn't show your purpose). Package dependencies are complex, and it's not only glibc issue. Why don't you use debootstrap and so on? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
