Re: Does debian have an official "standard" scripting language ?
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Bill Mitchell wrote: > As of debian 2.0, mawk and sed are `required' packages, so they should be > present on any debian system. Only the essential flag (or the base-files trick) guarantees a package to be present in the system and allows a package not to have an explicit dependency on it. awk (virtual) is essential because base-files depends on it. sed is essential. > ed and nvi (which supplies ex) are `important'. As of debian 2.0, > they aren't declared to be `essential', so they may not be present. Yes, my mistake. ed is not essential. -- "ed57d4d10a26038830a9a46992e95c54" (a truly random sig)
Re: Does debian have an official "standard" scripting language ?
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote: > > > Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an > > official scripting language ? > > Even if bash is essential, the "standard" shell is sh, not bash. > [ If you look at our shell scripts, most of them are /bin/sh, not > /bin/bash ]. There was a debian-devel discussion about /bin/bash vs. /bin/sh a month or two ago. From what I recall, it boiled down to: /bin/bash is both `required' and `essential'. As such, it will be present on any debian system. Debian ships with /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash. As of version 2.01-3.1, the bash package reinstalls that link whenever it is upgraded, so it is difficult to maintain a debian system with /bin/sh linked to any shell other than /bin/bash. /bin/bash provides bourne shell features plus extensions (known as bash-isms). Scripts using only bourne shell features should invoke /bin/sh. Scripts using bash-isms should explicitly invoke /bin/bash. There is no formal standard describing either the bourne shell or the bash shell scripting languages. /bin/bash is intended to be a POSIX conformant shell if invoked with the --posix option. If invoked as /bin/sh, bash enters POSIX mode after reading startup files. I recall it being mentioned in the discussion that bash still has some subtle POSIX nonconformancies. There is a formal standard describing the POSIX shell but, like the C language standard, it is not free. If you want a copy you must purchase one, and you are not allowed to reproduce your purchased copy. > The ones which are currently guaranteed to be on the system are sh, bash, > awk and perl (as well as all the other little ones, sed, ed, etc.), > because they are currently essential. As of debian 2.0, perl-base is an `essential' package. As such, it should be present on any debian system. The perl-base package is described as `a stripped down Perl with only essential libraries'. The perl package itself is `important' (not `required', so it may not be present). I don't speak perl, and I'm not clear on what perl features might be missing if the main perl package is not present. As of debian 2.0, mawk and sed are `required' packages, so they should be present on any debian system. ed and nvi (which supplies ex) are `important'. As of debian 2.0, they aren't declared to be `essential', so they may not be present.
Re: Does debian have an official "standard" scripting language ?
*-"Geoffrey L. Brimhall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an | official scripting language ? | | If so, is it perl, python, etc ? | | The reason I'm asking is largely questions of disk space - ie minimizing the | number of scripting languages installed on a system by writing a package which | depends on that scripting language. This has been discussed, but not settled. Some love perl, some love pyhton, some love both and some love none. I don't think there will ever be a "standard" scripting language, but I guess perl is closest at the moment, with perl-base being in the base system and all. -- ...Unix, MS-DOS, and MS Windows (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). (Matt Welsh) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-: .elOle. :-] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Does debian have an official "standard" scripting language ?
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote: > Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an > official scripting language ? Even if bash is essential, the "standard" shell is sh, not bash. [ If you look at our shell scripts, most of them are /bin/sh, not /bin/bash ]. > If so, is it perl, python, etc ? > > The reason I'm asking is largely questions of disk space - ie minimizing the > number of scripting languages installed on a system by writing a package which > depends on that scripting language. > > This disk space may not be an issue though. Just wanted to know... The ones which are currently guaranteed to be on the system are sh, bash, awk and perl (as well as all the other little ones, sed, ed, etc.), because they are currently essential. You are welcome to use any other scripting language as long as you put the required Depends: line in your package, but using awk or perl has his advantages (being disk space one of them). -- "38e7c67287a4859e04f1e64dc5719a5f" (a truly random sig)
Re: Does debian have an official "standard" scripting language ?
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 02:09:48AM -0700, Geoffrey L. Brimhall wrote: > Just like debian has an official standard shell - bash, does debian have an > official scripting language ? > > If so, is it perl, python, etc ? Yes, Bourne Shell :-> Bash implements most features of it, afaik. I really wish we had a bit more minimalistic base, but I don't have much time to work on it. Having Perl as necessary is also kind of ugly, IMO. Oh well.. Back to the netwinder... -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org
