Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea

To: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
From: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 13:15:14 -0400
Message-id: <[🔎] 19980731131514.A12307@scowler.ml.org>
Mail-followup-to: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.980731081354.670A-100000@dwarf.polaris.net>; from Dale Scheetz on Fri, Jul 31, 1998 at 08:19:01AM -0400
References: <[🔎] 8790lahclg.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.980731081354.670A-100000@dwarf.polaris.net>

> My one point is: As a user I depend on bash-history (the up arrow) and
> several other features of Bash, and would be more than a bit disapointed
> if the "default" shell was set to Ash.

I think the point of the lobby is to have a streamlined /bin/sh for scripts,
not to deprive anyone of their choice of login shell.

Who uses sh interactively anyway?


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
  - From: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>
- Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>

References:
- Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
  - From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>
- Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
  - From: Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>

Prev by Date: Re: Archive Restructuring - Package Pool
Next by Date: Re: what options do we have was Re: POSIX shell\; bash ash pdksh \& /bin/sh
Previous by thread: Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
Next by thread: Re: Several reason a minimal POSIX /bin/bash is a bad idea
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread