-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do. > > > > Well, will they be "legitimate" as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be > > refused by saying "I don't think it is important, since bash is > > essential" and closed immediately? > > Herbert has been filing bugs, for months now, against packages for > needlessly using #!/bin/bash when #!/bin/sh would work. Yes, but this is not exactly what I would like. Do you consider that small changes in shells scripts so that they can be made #!/bin/sh instead of #!/bin/bash are worthy to be made? [ "Worthy" enough to be allowed as a wishlist bug, I mean ]. > > If bash is essential, why don't we just use always #!/bin/bash? :-) > > Because if #!/bin/sh would work, it's better to use that, it might be > ash. Exactly. The point is: If we support having ash as /bin/sh, are not we recognizing indeed that bash is not *so* essential, since there may be other shells with the same *basic* functionality? > [ ... ] > do you want something to replace bash in base? No. being in base or not is not the point. I like to see GNU bash in base because this is a GNU/Linux system. I'm not discussing bash as a "default" shell. I just want (would like) all shell scripts to be #!/bin/sh by policy, so that bash could be *removed* if the user really does never use it, and another shell takes care of providing the /bin/sh symlink (for example, ash, if it proves to be good enough). > [ ... ] > > You have to port a lot of packages for one to work, when there is > > really no need. You can't port a single package. Packages are > > supposed to be "independent". This independence if what makes them > > portable. > > Do you compile many packages? I'm unlucky enough to have to, and > trust me, lots of packages have huge *strings* of source-dependencies. > (e.g. anything using debiandoc*, sgml2*, makeinfo or texi2html). I trust you. Surely there is a of packages that need a lot of things. But I think the bad thing is not needing a lot of things. The bad thing is needing a lot of things *without real need*. > [ ... ] > > But the example will be still valid for systems having a POSIX shell > > as /bin/sh. > > Does one exist? Don't know. But the question would be: If we would have another POSIX shell other than GNU bash, will be *ready* to make bash non essential? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNGtFTyqK7IlOjMLFAQHPBgP/de4JJ6LXcMzfG1bvLI+sLxAm3sRPqpLt H3m5eXW7zgHFot5sAGtKrzcITnv6DxcjDZ62ar9Uck5xk/xJX87xDNxhXrihMdri KUGsNYz63bSdRRJa4DeStp0VCjw6rASwRHuFn7PhxBS93C3ihNZktRFfu4uzs7MR NxLiG+xHxRQ= =IIc8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
