Re: portability as a goal for debian?
In Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:55:40 -0800 John cum veritate scripsit :
> i think it is also historical. we have always had bash, and that was the
> default. in today's more enlightened age (take that with a grain of
> salt) we see that instead of using a ``bloated'' sh, we try to strive
> for a more streamlined POSIX shell (such as ash). this way the essentail
> stuff is as small as it can be.
Rather than talking about essential, I think it is more important in
cases where the shell needs to fit into a floppy disk.
> note: there is nothing that can do dpkg's job that is smaller than dpkg.
> replacing perl with mawk and sed is smaller than perl. however,
> perl can do lots more than sed+mawk
there is always ar and tar and gzip and little more scripting with the
status files, and I thought udpkg almost does what dpkg does (sortof).
--
dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Reply to: