> With the policy on POSIX shells coming up, would a virtual package `sh',
> or `posix-shell', be appropriate? I think bash and ash could provide it,
> and possibly others, too (ksh? zsh?). I also think the link /bin/sh could
> be perfectly managed by the `alternatives' system, with the `smallest'
> shell (in terms of memory and processor requirements) having the highest
> priority.
I think it would just be better to require any /bin/sh to be posix compliant.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
measure with micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with axe, hope like hell
