On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:09:08 +0200, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:41:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> (04/04/2011): > > > > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important > > > > is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when > > > > it's used in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to > > > > be changed. > > > > > What is the most obvious reason to degrade bash to Priority: important? > > > > > (I can understand shell maintainers would like to get bash out of > > > their way, but how many (other) people really want to get rid of it?) > > > > Anybody doing development for embedded systems. :) > > > Which of those people don't also want to get rid of dash and coreutils > and use busybox instead?
And your point is? If both dash and busybox provide posix shell, and removing bash from essential highlights those packages that use bashisms unnecessarily, and so encourage some or all of those to be rendered in posix instead, then the world will have become a better place for embedded developers. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/ |-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/ |(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
pgp7fCEgLI286.pgp
Description: PGP signature
