On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 07:07:54PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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? What if I want to write my preinst script in python? > 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. This is not /usr/share/common-licenses. The measure of whether something belongs in Essential is *not* how many packages reference it. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
