Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do. > > Well, will they be "legitimate" as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be > refused by saying "I don't think it is important, since bash is > essential" and closed immediately?
Herbert has been filing bugs, for months now, against packages for needlessly using #!/bin/bash when #!/bin/sh would work. > If bash is essential, why don't we just use always #!/bin/bash? :-) Because if #!/bin/sh would work, it's better to use that, it might be ash. > This way we would not have to check whether it contains bashisms or > not... And we would lose any possibility of using ash or some other more stream-lined shell. > I mean: Do we consider a "good thing" that a shell script does not > need bash? I, obviously can't speak for "we", but I do and so does Herbert, and no one has thrown a fit about his bugs that I've seen. > > > If so many packages depend on bash, users who symlink sh > > > ->someotherPOSIXshell will never be able to get rid of bash, if > > > they do not like it. > > > > You can't rid of a lot of base, so what? (I hope you aren't going > > to argue that ash or something else similar should replace bash in > > base) > > Not all packages from base have to be essential. Being essential and > belonging to base are different things. Blah, okay, you can't get rid of a lot of essential things. My question stands, do you want something to replace bash in base? > > > So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact > > > saying "Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux > > > distributions". > > > > Uh, no. What we're saying is Debian Packages will always be for > > Debian distributions. What's wrong with that? > > You have to port a lot of packages for one to work, when there is > really no need. You can't port a single package. Packages are > supposed to be "independent". This independence if what makes them > portable. Do you compile many packages? I'm unlucky enough to have to, and trust me, lots of packages have huge *strings* of source-dependencies. (e.g. anything using debiandoc*, sgml2*, makeinfo or texi2html). > I still think that talking about "Debian packages" has sense without > having to port the whole Debian distribution. I don't think we should go out of our way to make it make sense. We have many more important things to deal with IMHO. > But the example will be still valid for systems having a POSIX shell > as /bin/sh. Does one exist? -- James
