On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 23 Nov 2006 22:40:01 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > > My point. If there is explicit "Depends: bash", then someone can post > > > a patch to provide alternative solution to a person who may not know > > > alternative constructs (having learned only bashism). > > > > Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Can you > > please explain what dependencies have to do with wishlist bugreports? > > "Depends:" make dependency visible, whereas filing a wishlist is > usually result of someone by accident finding the script to include > bashism. He may offer a patch to convert those constructs to standard > sh-way-of-doing-things. > > It's easier to eyeball packages that explicitly announce "bash". > Those could be put to a stress test through: > > /bin/dash > /bin/posh > ... > > If someone feels up to.
I don't really see the point. If the maintainer knows the package contains bashisms, he might just as well fix them instead. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
