Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:31:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> >> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where >> >> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort? >> >> I *think* that was the point of your message but am not entirely sure. > >> > Yes, that's definitely my position. From what I can see, engineering a >> > solution where dash doesn't need to be essential isn't worth *any* effort, >> > because IMHO, so far the arguments for being able to remove dash from the >> > system appear entirely contrived. > >> What about Manojs argument of having user scripts that (falsely) use >> bashism and #!/bin/sh or user accounts with /bin/sh as login shell? > >> The proposed solution would allow the admin to choose what shell is >> /bin/sh and even more so would keep bash as /bin/sh on existing >> systems unless as different /bin/sh is specificaly configured. > > Permitting the user to choose where /bin/sh points is orthogonal to whether > dash is Essential. There's already support for user configuration of the > /bin/sh link, and my understanding is that the proposal actually on the > table doesn't change that.
Where is that support? The dpkg-divert in sid dash is not suitable on a larger scale. It is a verry limited solution. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org