Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Sat November 11 2006 22:10, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> So why not just specify all maintainer scripts just use
> /bin/bash? I am not sure. Perhaps because allowing scripts to
> specify /bin/sh would allow then to be sped up a trifle when /bin/sh
> is a nimbler shell? Is this worth the complexity? we speed up
> install times of packages a wee bit at the expense of a much more
> complicated policy document? (I know some people think we can move
> bash out of Essential one of these days, and well, I think that is
> mere wishful thinking and a pipe dream).
"trifle" and "wee" for a modern box can be significant on an older box,
in both start up time and the amount of RAM used.
I think Debian should specify that maintainer scripts must
use /bin/dash... that would also cut down on policy complexity, and not
unnecessarily raise the bar with respect what is required to be a
usable system.
How many more bugs like #271072 and #395140 will be filed if /bin/bash
use was mandated for maintainer scripts? What does bash do that can't
be done with dash? Should convenience trump usability? What would be
more noticeable or significant: the 200k dash package on a modern box,
or increased swapping and significantly slower installs on an older
one?
- Bruce
Reply to: