"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say > /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts > to work with some generic shell. The former is going to be *much* > easier. Isn't that enough?
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). Note, that I did not suggest rewriting any existing scripts, but I was looking forward to making the need of bash more transparent that what it is now in packages. Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
