Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit requirement > > for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages "need" bash to make > > them work. someone may then provide a patch to "make bash go away". > > This would conflict with Policy 3.5, which says that packages should not > depend on any essential package unless they need a specific version. > Policy shouldn't contradict itself, so I think this would require further > discussion and justification for making an exception for bash. > > In practice, I don't think it would ever be possible to remove any feature > from the set of essential packages in Debian.
I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the policy should take the shells as special case, because the sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are no viable alternative implementation of Perl which is in essential, likewise for the rest. But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh, pdksh ..., if it uses those shells special features. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
