[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh

>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

 Santiago> On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 >> The essentialness of bash is not quite
 >> irreversible, but it is hard enough that it requires good reasons to
 >> remove. You have provided none that convinced me.

 Santiago> Manoj, the problem with this discussion, I think, is that
 Santiago> you use the word "essential" with two different meanings,
 Santiago> namely:

 Santiago> 1. That bash has the essential flag in the control file.
 Santiago> 2. That bash is a very important package and we should
 Santiago>    never never never let the user to remove it from their
 Santiago>    system under any circumstance even if there is a posix
 Santiago>    /bin/sh replacement, not today nor tomorrow nor the year
 Santiago>    2000 nor the year 2010.

	Actually, without thought, I would say never. You have to have
 convincing reasons to remove bash, which I have not yet seen.

 Santiago> and mix the two meanings constantly.

 Santiago> I am *always* talking about essentialness in the first meaning.

	And I say we need to think long and hard about removing the
 essential flag from a package, becuse that step is going to be costly
 (figuring out the implicit dependencies and adding stuff to the
 depends line). I am questioning whether it is cost effective to do
 that. (That does not mean virulent opposition; I just need to be
 convinced it is worth while jumping through these hoops).

 Santiago> The fact that 90% of scripts *already* use /bin/sh and not
 Santiago> /bin/bash *proves* that bash is not as essential (in the
 Santiago> *second* meaning) as you say, and therefore making it
 Santiago> non-essential (in the first meaning) is, at least,
 Santiago> something we should consider the day we have another
 Santiago> /bin/sh other than bash.

	I am for *testing* other packages to serve as /bin/sh; but I
 also believe that in any package I should be able to put scripts that
 say #!/bin/bash and expect things to work; including preinsts
 (essential packages are all I can depend on, in preinst, I am told).

	I think I would need to see alternates tested even before I
 move from this position; and I would need to have a POSIX compliant
 shell that I can *depend* to have available, which has foibles that
 can be trusted; and not just use /bin/sh that can be any shell at all
 (within guidelines that we set) and use just the lowest common
 denominator (which we all agree seems to be POSIX). Even POSIX
 compliant shells behave differently on different scripts; and I think
 it is nice we have one command nterpreter with well known behaviour. 


 Date: 21 Feb 90 20:51:25 GMT From: merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal
 Schwartz) echo Just another Perl hacker,|perl -e
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

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

Reply to: