[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 21.11.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't know whether Ian does, but I do. I find
cp /very/long/path/foo /very/long/path/bar baz
a lot harder to read than
cp /very/long/bath/{foo,bar} baz
And your suggestion of
(cd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Mark Baker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila Doncel) writes:
Yes, bash is essential because we always *need* a POSIX shell. But GNU
bash provides *two* of them: /bin/sh and /bin/bash. Only /bin/sh should
be essential.
However, dangling symlinks
Santiago Vila Doncel:
bash is currently essential because there is no other POSIX
shell. Point.
No, that is not the (only) reason why bash is essential. bash is also
essential because it provides a fixed useful set of facilities for
people to write init.d scripts, preinst scripts, c., - ie,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) writes:
And your suggestion of
(cd /very/long/path; cp foo bar baz)
To be safe, this should be
(cd /very/long/path cp foo bar baz)
--
Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
It is clearly necessary for there to be some basic set of
functionality which can be used by packages before others are
available.
We decided very early on to make this set be Perl (without most of the
modules) and bash.
What the people who want to make bash nonessential are asking is to
further
Santiago Vila Doncel:
So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying
Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux distributions.
and later in another message
No, we are saying If you want to port a single Debian package to some
system, you have to Debianize the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson wrote:
What the people who want to make bash nonessential are asking is to
further restrict the facilities available to such programs, in a way
that may make life very difficult for people.
make life very difficult is an exaggeration.
bash is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Ellis) wrote on 13.11.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Because it is that way now is NOT necessarily a valid argument for
keeping things the same way. Slavery used to be common, East Germany used
to exist. That is not a valid arguement for the continuance of East
Germany
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Santiago I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
Santiago essential.
Manoj Why?
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
in favour of #!/bin/bash...
Manoj Do we have any alternatives?
Currently, maybe not.
In fact
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
in favour of #!/bin/bash...
Sorry, against #!/bin/bash, I meant, of course
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
essential.
Why?
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh in
favour of #!/bin/bash...
That seems to me a singularly unconvincing argument for making bash
non
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In fact, I am not worried by the fact that bash is essential or not.
I am worried by the fact that so many packages depend on it.
I suggest you file bugs on those which
Scott Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is already essential,
that is Debian policy. The onus is on *you* to demonstrate why
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
Scott Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is already essential,
that is Debian policy
-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
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ stuff snipped to get down to the core issue ]
What I want to see answered is this:
How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
multiple possibilities?
You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as
. And in fact, if a Debian
maintainer, or an upstream author, wants to use #!/bin/bash, I feel
that's their prerogative, and to support that, I do think that bash
should remain essential. After all, its installed size is less than
one floppy (683K last time I checked), which is certainly not (IMO)
even
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Rob Browning wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying
Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux distributions.
No, we are saying that you need bash on any Debian
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact
saying Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux
distributions.
No, we are saying that you need bash on any Debian system.
No, we are saying If you want to port a
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Rob Browning wrote:
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So if we have to
admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying Debian
packages will always be for Debian/Linux
Santiago Vila Doncel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, we are saying If you want to port a single Debian package to some
system, you have to Debianize the system first. This is nonsense.
I know this is a small sample, but every system here in the CS dept:
SUNs, SGIs, AIX machines, and HP machines
Hi,
I agree with the statement that any script that uses bashisms
should in fact start with the string #! /bin/bash.
Do we know of any other shell that is POSIX compliant? Bash,
invoked as /bin/sh, has a stated goal of being a POSIX compliant
shell, and I think is quite good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Ian Jackson wrote:
If you want to change the policy and say that bash shouldn't be
essential then please come to debian-policy and we'll talk about it.
I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be essential.
It might be worth considering how many
24 matches
Mail list logo
