On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 16:06 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:22:27 -0800, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> > wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > >> Steve Langasek dixit: > > > >> >(For values of "permanently" that include "we now have two implementations > >> >of sh in Essential, because no one has done the work to let us get rid of > >> >bash".) > > > >> Maybe because the offered alternative sucks so much. > > > >You are totally, completely, 100% missing the point. We can't remove bash > >from Essential because packages are silently using /bin/bash without > >depending on bash, because they've been *told not to*. This is not about > >your hobby horse issue of whose /bin/sh is better, it's about the fact that > >once an interface makes its way into Essential, we have a very hard time > >removing it. > > The first step would be to change policy to no longer deprecate > depending on bash if one uses รค!/bin/bash scripts. > > The second step would be a lintian warning if a package contains a > #!/bin/bash script without depending on bash.
What if I want to use bash features in a preinst script? The idea of making bash non-essential seems like pure busy-work; the vast majority of Debian systems will continue to have it installed and it will just result in a stream of RC bugs because of undeclared dependencies. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
