Re: Comments on the "Changing the default system shell" talk
On Sun, Jul 26 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> So the deconf thing is purely a temporary thing and goes away. There
>> won't be a choice left. Users will just get /bin/sh pointing to dash
> No, /bin/sh is shipped to guarantee a symlink.
I take this to mean that installaations with /bin/sh -> /bin/bash
will not be affected? That is good, if true.
>> If admins dpkg-divert /bin/sh and use another shell they will be
>> totaly left out in the cold with fixing any problems.
> That's not new.
Actually, this is a bit of a regression: Today, if I have bash
as the default shell, and there is a problem, I can get help. I can
also get help if dash is /bin/sh. So, in effect, there are two shells
which are deemed proper candidates for /bin/sh; and reducing the set
membership would be a regression.
>> You say you give admins a choice to divert /bin/sh to whatever (posix)
>> shell they like. But you only give them a choice of adding yet another
>> shell. Not a choice of replacing dash. Only a choice of adding even
>> more. After diverting /bin/sh instead of having one useless shell we
>> now have 2 useless shells on the system. At least until bash becomes
>> non essential.
> You could actually say the same about many other, even essential,
> tools; so I don't see it as a problem. It is a period of transition.
I think we strongly resist any additions to the Essential set;
and only add things when there is no other option; so current
membership in the set is not the issue. Adding to it is, and that is
what makes it different.
You taught me language, and my profit on't is, I know how to
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C