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

Re: bash package removing /bin/sh on upgrade

On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 11:28:31AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 11:55:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > *shrug* Name a case where it fails.
> You don't remember the problems when libreadline broke?

Yes, I do. That's not related to bash, it's related to having bash
implicitly pre-depending on itself (its preinst was a /bin/sh script),
and apt uninstalling it on upgrade.

(That's what the C preinsts I posted were all about in the first place)

(What is the problem with --rename, btw? I'm curious, and dpkg-divert is
horribly underdocumented)

> Or, to address your implicit question rather than your explicit question:
> Bash is an order of magnitude more complex than what's needed for
> /bin/sh -- this results in efficiency problems and results in a number
> of potential reliability problems.

Indeed. Against these risks (which we and just about every other Linux
distribution have lived with reasonably happily for how long?) you'd
need to balance changing to something which we've barely tested at all.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpIrC3PIOZ9t.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: