Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 11:10:19AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:56 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > > > scripts.
> > >
> > > Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
> > >
> > > > Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
> > > > consumption a problem when compared to other alternatives.
> > >
> > > The only alternative in Debian is dash, which explicitly says it's not a replacement:
> > >
> > > "bash" is a better shell for most users, since it has some nice
> > > features absent from "dash", and is a required part of the system.
> > This refers to inteactive use. dash suits well for scripts.
> You miss the point. If there is any interactive use at all, then bash
> needs to be on the system. Embedded systems are nifty, but they are not
> an issue for Debian.
You miss the point too... dash is suitable scripts, and any Linux
machine, embedded or not, runs lots of scripts. dash runs those scripts
faster. To be able to run those scripts at all, it needs the scripts to
be free from bashisms.
You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.
Oh, and there *are* other suitable interactive shells than bash. tcsh,
ksh, zsh, rc... Whether any of these actually consume less memory than
bash, I cannot say, since I'm a bash user myself on the desktop. Yet
all the scripts I write run perfectly well (and faster) in dash.
/) David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/