Re: ash vs. bash

[Jules Bean <jules@jellybean.co.uk>]

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> 
> 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.

This is what I meant.  b - make ash the /bin/sh shell - because it is
faster, and equally POSIX compliant.

The only disadvantage is possible bugs when people inadvertantly have
used bashisms in a #!/bin/bash shell.

 
> 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.
> 

Certainly not this.  It is a very nice interactive shell.

It would be nice to downgrade it from required to important (or even
standard) and remove the essential flag, though.

Jules