Indeed!
El jue, 19-09-2002 a las 10:28, Clint Adams escribió:
> > /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)?!
[...stripped explanation about what is policy for...]
> 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 the Standards-Version is too out-of-date, one may file a bug about that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.
[...and more stripping]
Thank you and Julian for pointing me to actual practice.
It is my opinion, that all sh-scripts involved in the standard system
should be posix-sh compatible _and_ that the selection of the /bin/sh
symlink should be realized by the alternative-mecanism instead of
diverting.
This means effectively a change of the policy, and once I get time and
> 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.
>
a big pillow against probable hostility I'll file the bug :-)
Best Regards,
Jorge-León
