On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:09:59PM +0000, Clint Adams wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:18:07PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Why?
> Because: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:38:01AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > > If the goal is to make *bash* removable, then I can understand why that > > would be helpful to some people since it's the heavier shell by far. None > > of what you're talking about in this subthread actually advances that goal, > > however. The blocker for removing bash is that today, packages invoking > > /bin/bash are not required by Policy to depend on it. And if they did, we > > might find that there are Priority: required packages using it, which > > there's no policy against, making the exercise more or less pointless. > > Oh yeah - libpam0g is one, and libpam0g is transitively essential. > Those packages can be fixed if we want a nice, lean core system. Patches will be considered. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
