Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> I think if you request bash as your shell, you should only do
Marcus> it when you use bash features that are non-posix. And then,
Marcus> yes, I think you should be aware of it and only do it when it
Marcus> is really necessary.
Why? Why should I only do it if only necesary? Why am I free
to choose lesstif or slang or newt or whiptail, but when it comes to
a shell, the proprietary police shall jump on me?
Give me one technical reason for asking me to do so.
Marcus> One shouldn't just put #!/bin/bash at the top of a script
Marcus> without thinking.
Why ot? Why can I choose between C and C++ and java, and not
have the freedom to choose bash?
Marcus> And I think that so few packages really need a dependency on
Marcus> bash, that they should declare a dependency on bash and that
Marcus> action is taken to make bash non-essential in the long run,
Why are we doing this? I think I agree with Guy. This is a
misguided attempt to create busy work, and I have seen no technical
justification for doing so.
Marcus> I would not go through scripts and tell maintainers to
Marcus> declare explicit dependency on bash. I would ask them to seek
Marcus> posix compliance and use /bin/sh.
Personally, I see no real reason for doing so. I have bash on
all machines I am interested in. Bash scripts that I write are quite
protable. Why should I go with POSIX? POSIX shells are not that
widely available, and I find Bash portable enough for me.
It is one thing to ask Debian packaging scripts be portable,
but asking authors and users to eschew bash for no reason is not
Marcus> 1) Make all shell scripts either posix clean or call
>> I think you are confused. If I call /bin/bash, and no such
>> thing exists, is it a bug?
Marcus> I think I'm not confused but very aware of your opinion that
Marcus> bash should be installed in every Debian system.
You do not make sense so far. Look at what you have said
above. You say "Make all shell scripts either posix clean or call
#!/bin/bash". Cool . I shall do so. Satisfied? That works since Bash
is essential. How does your proposal solve the problem of Bash not
Marcus> I beg you to follow me just a second and imagine we would
Marcus> make bash non-essential. You can't go half the way or even go
Marcus> from the end to the beginning.
I see no reason so far to do so. *Why* am I jumping through
all the hoops and maling bash non-essential?
Marcus> This is not convincing to me, sorry.
You are the one advicating change, and on you is the burden of
convincing people that change is good. Random change for the sake of
change is not a reason.
Just because we can change something is not good enough reason
to change either.
"Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa; yeah, right. To paraphrase,
the net finds its own uses for garbage." Eric Hughes
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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 firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com