> /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash. Shouldn't it be an alternative so I > can make ash or any other compliant, but smaller shall the default (and > thus save memory and CPU requirements)?!
The problem is that various people like to claim that policy is either irrelevant or that it means something entirely different than what it says. Furthermore, policy is meant to document current practices, and to mandate current policy, but no one is in any way required to follow current policy, and expecting anyone to do so is antisocial behavior. If there is any discrepancy between current practice and policy, the resolution process involves the tossing of yarrow sticks and the rearrangement of moonstones. Each package must declare its conformance with a particular version of policy. If that package does not properly conform to that Standards-Version, one may file a bug about that. If the Standards-Version is too out-of-date, one may file a bug about that as well. These bugs are used later on in the moonstone ceremony. An increment in the major version number represents a change that will require every package to change. An increment in the minor version number represents significant changes that will require many packages to be changed. Note that the major and minor numbers can never be changed because of the following truths: no one is required to follow policy; policy is not a stick to beat people with; policy dictates current practice; since policy can't change without current practice first changing, and packages can't be required to change, there can be no situations in which packages are required to change. At least, that's if you believe what you hear. Seriously, though, you're welcome to change the symlink from /bin/bash to any conformant shell, as policy will tell you. However, not everything will work perfectly, and bug reports about such problems are met with varying levels of helpfulness and hostility.
