On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 08:13:44AM +0100, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Stephan Kulow schrieb:
On 3/13/19 1:44 PM, Simon Lees wrote:
Yep and this is the big fat lazy option. Given the quality our release managers expect of our Tier 1 desktops and even our T2 desktops I don't see how we can include code "That will break in some cases" in the same category, if your only willing to go to that level of excellence keep the code in your home repo. Do you think such code is an acceptable standard for packagehub? personally I don't, and if its not acceptable for packagehub it should not be acceptable for Leap or Tumbleweed.
It's up to the packagehub maintainers to define their acceptance level, not on me. But I don't like the attitude to take freedom away from openSUSE users to break their systems. Breaking and fixing is basically the core of the fun people take out of linux.
Would I recommend anyone to switch /bin/sh? Hell, no! I personally would even go as far and block every alternative in the distribution - but with bash blocking /bin/sh there is not even a way for experiments without breaking your system integrity.
If we wanted to make it possible to replace /bin/sh without actually encouraging doing so in the distro I think it would be easier to have /bin/sh in a separate subpackage. On package level we have better options to control what goes where and what gets installed by default, eg by means of Requires in patterns or NON_FTP_PACKAGES.
This I've suggested in the submit request comments, that is that bash.spec provides a sub package which only includes the link /bin/sh -> /usr/bin/sh even if I do not like those links between Essential User Binaries and the Non-essential User Binaries. Werner -- "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr