>>>>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: >>> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit >>> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages >>> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to >>> "make bash go away". I suggest removing the last 2 lines:
>> Personnally I rather look forward for the day where the use of >> shells for non-interactive task is deprecated in Debian. > That is the day I'll fork Debian :P. If Debian ever departs > so far from its UNIX roots, then it would be mostly useless windows > clone in my eyes. I think you misunderstood. The keyword is "non-interactive", as in replacing shell scripts with Perl/Python/Whatever. FWIW, I disagree with Bill. I do find myself rewriting many of shell scripts with python when they get bigger. However, for simple stuff like stringing together a few shell commands, nothing beats the shell. Ganesan -- Ganesan Rajagopal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
