* Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061123 06:56]: > > But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells > and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to > announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh, > pdksh ..., if it uses those shells special features. > > Jari >
Making an exception like this is not a good idea, and is not necessary. If it is decided that allowing bash to be replaced by one of a short list of other shells is a good idea, then make each shell in the list Provide: almost-posix-shell (or something) and make almost-posix-shell essential (can a virtual package be essential?). Or make a real package almost-posix-shell that depends on bash | dash | .... I have no particular opinion on the bash/dash/* issue, but making policy conflict with itself or have unnecessary special cases is bad. In fact, you could remove the whole issue of listing specific features required of /bin/sh from the policy if you make a real package almost-posix-shell, place the documentation of what can be expected of it in the package, and replace bash by almost-posix-shell in the "essential" list. This doesn't, of course, do anything to help the issue of ensuring the non-bugginess (w.r.t. requirements of almost-posix-shell) of the shells that almost-posix-shell depends on, but it simplifies policy and moves the details into a single location. ...Marvin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
