On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:31:52PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [010307 12:06]:
> > > Bash is to big for essential. it uses several times the space of
> > > ash. essential has to be minimal.
> > In that case dpkg is too big for essential too.
> Then we should replace dpkg with ash - oh, it is not even the
> same category of program. So you must have been joking, to
> compare apples and eggs, right? there is no replacement for dpkg,
> so stick to it. if dpkg is bloated, unbloat it. that is the
> message. not 'if some given binary is bigger then the ash binary,
> replace it with ash.' I would have thought that much was clear.
What are you trying to achieve by getting rid of bash? Some saved disk
space? You'll save much more if you get rid of dpkg and maintain it
by hand. Seriously.
If you're just trying to maintain a pointless protracted argument on
this list though, please carry on. Seems to be doing pretty well so far.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpQVZCditcBY.pgp
Description: PGP signature