Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <email@example.com> writes:
Santiago> On 5 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> But, historically, we have made Bash essential. There did seem
>> to be a technical reason when we did that, even if circumstances have
>> changed since.
Santiago> Manoj, you are investing too much energy for an
Santiago> hiphotetical case like bash (which definitely will continue
Santiago> to be essential at least until there is a proven and well
Santiago> testet alternative for /bin/sh, I think we agree on this),
Santiago> but too few energy for restoring procps his essential
Santiago> flag. Why?
I was not actively involved in the procps debate. Also, I
think using /bin/ps is a far cry from using bash, the longest lived
DFSG free shell, as a command interpreter (ash is newer,
right?). This issue has farther reaching consequences than whether
one used /bin/ps in a script (that command is designed for
interactive use, after all).
So yes, I do see a difference.
>> Backwards compatibility? Because we have implied Bash is
>> always going to be present, and should not yank the rug out from
>> under peoples feet? Because no sufficiently good reason has ben given
>> to justify us breaking the promise?
Santiago> I'm surprised that you still talk about promises. Policy
Santiago> says nothing about promises. The essential flag is a
Santiago> technical issue, not a social issue. We want to avoid users
Santiago> to break their systems completely. That's all. Making bash
Santiago> non-essential and adding Depends: bash lines for packages
Santiago> that depend on it will not make the system easier to break,
Santiago> that's for sure, you would have to use some --force flag in
Santiago> either case.
I still fail to see the reason why we should make this effort.
A pickup with three guys in it pulls into the lumber yard. One of
the men gets out and goes into the office. "I need some
four-by-two's," he says. "You must mean two-by-four's" replies the
clerk. The man scratches his head. "Wait a minute," he says, "I'll
go check." Back, after an animated conversation with the other
occupants of the truck, he reassures the clerk, that, yes, in fact,
two-by-fours would be acceptable. "OK," says the clerk, writing it
down, "how long you want 'em?" The guy gets the blank look again.
"Uh... I guess I better go check," he says. He goes back out to the
truck, and there's another animated conversation. The guy comes back
into the office. "A long time," he says, "we're building a house".
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org