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

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 

- Bruce

Reply to: