Re: ash vs. bash
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:28:34AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> Cool. Well, I had another testimonial off-list by Steve Lamb, who uses
> ash as his /bin/sh.
> Anyone think of a reason why we shouldn't make this policy (does it have
> to be policy, or can we just do it?)
Currently, I have no idea what exactly you want to make policy:
a. Run the startup scripts with ash:
1. Make ash priority requried and essential.
2. Put #!/bin/ash on top of the start up scripts.
Or, we could use #!/bin/startup-sh and manage this by update-alternatives.
Then, ash would not need to be essential/required.
b. Make ash the /bin/sh default shell.
Easy. Manage /bin/sh by update-alternatives.
c. Get rid of /bin/bash completely.
First, do b. Then make ash and bash provide posix-shell and some required
base package dependant on posix-shell. Then add bash in the dependency field
of all packages that depend on bash. Then downgrade bash to important or
standard and remove the essential flag.
There is probably more to do. I don't know if it is worth it.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09