Re: Why does Debian not include POSIX-specified commands like bc and ed by default?
On Sat 12 Sep 2020 at 07:41:19 (-0500), Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2020 12 Sep 02:06 -0500, Lone Learner wrote: > > POSIX.1-2001 Utilities[1] and POSIX.1-2008 Utilities[2] both list the > > commands "bc" and "ed" to be part of POSIX. > > > > Yet, in a brand new Debian installation (version 10 for example), > > these commands are missing by default: > > > > […] > > > > Why does Debian not include these commands by default? > > It's likely because the focus of the Debian Project is not that of > shipping a strict POSIX compliant system out of the box. > > > Of course, I can install them with "apt-get" and I did that. > > > > apt-get install bc ed > > I believe that 'apt' is preferred over "apt-get" these days. Simple > "apt" works well for me. Some might prefer it for interactive use, but apt-get has a more stable command line interface, so is better for scripting when, say, installing all one's preferred packages on a new system. Cheers, David.
Re: Why does Debian not include POSIX-specified commands like bc and ed by default?
* On 2020 12 Sep 02:06 -0500, Lone Learner wrote: > POSIX.1-2001 Utilities[1] and POSIX.1-2008 Utilities[2] both list the > commands "bc" and "ed" to be part of POSIX. > > Yet, in a brand new Debian installation (version 10 for example), > these commands are missing by default: > > $ bc > bash: bc: command not found > $ ed > bash: ed: command not found > > Why does Debian not include these commands by default? It's likely because the focus of the Debian Project is not that of shipping a strict POSIX compliant system out of the box. > Of course, I can install them with "apt-get" and I did that. > > apt-get install bc ed I believe that 'apt' is preferred over "apt-get" these days. Simple "apt" works well for me. > The "bc" binary is only 87K in size. The entire package including the > man page and documentation is only 209K in size. > > Similarly the "ed" binary is only 55K in size. The entire package is > only 93K in size. > > What good reason is there not to include these tiny packages even > though they are specified in POSIX? Debian has an opt-in survey of the most used packages/files via the "popularity-contest" package: https://popcon.debian.org/ It likely shows that the utilities in question are not used often so why include something that is seldom used? Those that need them know how to install them and packages that depend on them will install them. Including them by default apparently does little to further the goals of the Debian Project. Of course, as one interested in Debian, you are free to create your own spin that is as POSIX compliant as you can make it. Good luck! - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Web: https://www.n0nb.us Projects: https://github.com/N0NB GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Why does Debian not include POSIX-specified commands like bc and ed by default?
On 9/12/20 9:05 AM, Lone Learner wrote: > POSIX.1-2001 Utilities[1] and POSIX.1-2008 Utilities[2] both list the > commands "bc" and "ed" to be part of POSIX. > > Yet, in a brand new Debian installation (version 10 for example), > these commands are missing by default: > > $ bc > bash: bc: command not found > $ ed > bash: ed: command not found > > Why does Debian not include these commands by default? Of course, I > can install them with "apt-get" and I did that. > > apt-get install bc ed > > The "bc" binary is only 87K in size. The entire package including the > man page and documentation is only 209K in size. > > Similarly the "ed" binary is only 55K in size. The entire package is > only 93K in size. > > What good reason is there not to include these tiny packages even > though they are specified in POSIX? > > [1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/idx/utilities.html > > [2]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/utilities.html > Why should it include? POSIX is just a standard and Debian is even not POSIX compliant AFAIK :) Also the certification is kind of costly. But looking from the technical point of view, obviously none of reverse dependencies of ed or bc are installed on your system and thus theses packages are not needed. See apt-cache rdepends ed for example. Best, Alex
Re: Why does Debian not include POSIX-specified commands like bc and ed by default?
12 sept. 2020 09:06:19 Lone Learner : > Why does Debian not include these [posix] commands by default? > I guess many debian users don't care about these commands, so it would be rude to impose something wanted by only a part of the users. And there's the case of tiny embedded scarce systems too. If posix compliance is needed, these packages (and maybe others) can be easily installed, though an additional POSIXLY_CORRECT global setting would need to be done also. Maybe we could decide to create a package called "posix" that woult depend on all of them, if really needed and someone cares to spend time on that. But if you need to use software that need e.g. bc, the package certainly already depends on bc anyway. Best regards Fabrice
Why does Debian not include POSIX-specified commands like bc and ed by default?
POSIX.1-2001 Utilities[1] and POSIX.1-2008 Utilities[2] both list the commands "bc" and "ed" to be part of POSIX. Yet, in a brand new Debian installation (version 10 for example), these commands are missing by default: $ bc bash: bc: command not found $ ed bash: ed: command not found Why does Debian not include these commands by default? Of course, I can install them with "apt-get" and I did that. apt-get install bc ed The "bc" binary is only 87K in size. The entire package including the man page and documentation is only 209K in size. Similarly the "ed" binary is only 55K in size. The entire package is only 93K in size. What good reason is there not to include these tiny packages even though they are specified in POSIX? [1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/idx/utilities.html [2]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/idx/utilities.html
