Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
Santiago> essential.
Why? Mind you, I'm not being argumentative, I just want to
see technical reasons for and against having a standard, free Bourne
shell marked essential, espescially one whose goal is to be POSIXly
correct when invoked as /bin/sh. Do we have any alternatives? I think
we need to be able to depend on having *some* POSIX-like sh available
on the system, and it seems to me that only marking a package
essential can ensure that.
>> It might be worth considering how many packages currently use
>> bashisms in places where only an essential package will do.
Santiago> Will file * | grep "Bourne-Again" serve?
Possibly not, since I recall that some version of debmake made
*all* sh scripts be bash scripts, and some maintainers may have done
so defensively, knowing that bash was essential anyway.
Santiago> Perhaps we should analyze all shell scripts and report bugs
Santiago> first.
Yes.
manoj
--
Of all the passions that possess mankind, The love of novelty rules
most the mind; In search of this, from realm to realm we roam; Our
fleets come fraught with ev'ry folly home. -- Foote
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
