[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ash vs. bash

According to Steve Lamb:
> >that no stand alone sh are available. This brings us to the inital subject...
> >we can't switch from bash to ash/ksh/zsh/etc without breaking everyting :(
>     Yes, we can.  As people have pointed out they have switched to ash and
> their systems are running perfectly fine.  So, obviously, "everything" is
> *NOT* broken.

yes, you can change the /bin/sh link from bash to ash.
no, you can't dpkg --purge bash (just look at the number of packages that
depends on bash, even if they need no more than sh).

For me, bash has always been a contrib, like tcsh, zsh and friends.
sh is the real standard bourne shell. I don't want to start an OS war
but all linux distributions tend to forget the line between the OS and
the contrib tools.. which is unfortunate because it makes tool sharing
very difficult :(

>     Only some things are broken and noone knows the extend of that "some".  I
> do know, however, that in the past 4-5 months I've been running ash as
> /bin/sh I've not encountered anything.  So based on my personal observation
> I'm inclined to say that "some" is a small enough quantity that it is
> something we can handle in some future version by filing bugs against those
> "some" and correct them in one manner or another.

I agree but if it should be done, can't we remove another letter ?
bash -> ash -> sh :)
This will let people use whatever shell they want (iif it is sh compliant).

Fabien Tassin -+- fta@oleane.net

Reply to: