-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James Troup: > How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with > multiple possibilities?
Having a virtual package tagged as essential. > You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as > essential, otherwise people can totally hose their system by removing > all bourne shells, and if there isn't an essential one you can't > assume the presence of a POSIX bourne shell for the purpose of > dependencies. I think this is not true. Virtual packages allow that. We could create an essential package named "posix-shell". GNU bash and any other POSIX shell will provide it. If (currently) virtual packages are not (technically) allowed to be essential, I think we have a work-around: we could choose *any* essential package and make it to pre-depend on "posix-shell", this way at least one posix-shell should be installed to satisfy the dependency. The end result would be the same. As I said, if the only problem is of *technical* type, we should start considering bash as non-essential *now* and discourage the use of #!/bin/bash scripts by policy. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNGteXiqK7IlOjMLFAQHF/gP/dPjuvYzUPXZ6C804MpWuBESOzjM3AQkK Z0HEsBS75kMqVgg2vceXjD8zqzCAOH0k7MSo0UdcymhD0OD9VHvCLuOm3MjpOWAZ AZv3HVQ8oY8PBJ1nOy4YHVPlr1k2zEb3GA7rX2xnX4yHDa0Rz6SXxXyDp+IDKmFe qQbN2yEiv+A= =dCqc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
