On 25 Nov 2006 10:02:14 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >> > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can >> > post a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may >> > not know alternative constructs (having learned only bashism). >> >> Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Can you >> please explain what dependencies have to do with wishlist bugreports?
> "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is > usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include > bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard > sh-way-of-doing-things. > It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash". > Those could be put to a stress test through: IMHO, this is trying to use dependencies for something that it was not meant for. Sure, it may make it easier to find scripts with possible bashisms, but I would not consider this to be a reason for telling people to depend on bash, just to make someone else's job easier. Those who care can 'grep "#\! */bin/bash" /usr/bin/* /etc/init.d/*' etc, or run through the archive. If a maintainer knows about a bashism and is interested in getting rid of it but doesn't know how, they can file a wishlist bug against their own package, and tag it 'help'. Making "Depends: bash" a requirement would affect too many packages, and making it a suggestion is IMHO no better than asking maintainers to file wishlist bug reports. -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
