Re: ash vs. bash
On 20-Jul-99, 04:47 (CDT), Carlo Strozzi <carlos@linux.it> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:16:28PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> (...)
> >#1 is what lets us change the default /bin/sh to any posix compliant sh.
> >If ash provides this, cool. But you can't just yank bash off the system
> >and expect things to work. And I don't see a *significant* benefit in
> >doing so.
>
> Any time a program makes a system(3) call it would benefit from having
> /bin/sh linked to /bin/ash as opposed to /bin/bash.
Did you even read what I wrote? Did you assume that I hadn't read
*any* of the reasons for changing /bin/sh? Let me try again in short
sentences.
We can change /bin/sh to any POSIX compliant sh. If ash is posix
compliant (I'm not arguing, I just haven't spent any time looking),
that's fine. But you can't just remove bash; there are too many scripts
that rely on it, quite correctly, as /bin/bash (NOT /bin/sh). Bash
has long been a required package, and therefore there is no need for
packages that use it to declare a "Depends:". And I don't see any
significant benefit in *removing* bash.
Steve
Reply to: