Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort? I *think* that was the point of your message but am not entirely sure.Yes, that's definitely my position. From what I can see, engineering a solution where dash doesn't need to be essential isn't worth *any* effort, because IMHO, so far the arguments for being able to remove dash from the system appear entirely contrived.
I'm not so sure on the long run: - maybe a truly posix-like tiny shell will emerge. - We need to solve in next 5 to 10 years the "echo -n" problem. IIRC there is a join group POSIX-LSB to solve this and other Linux "incompatibility" problem. - what make special dash? I was using when it was named "ash". In the future maybe it will change the name, removing the Debian "d". Maybe a super cool tiny and very fast shell will emerge and supercede dash. What will we do? Need to support an essential third shell implementation? So want to leave such door open. Just provide the interface (a POSIX like shell), not a name of an implementation. PS: I really want to have dash as default shell. ciao cate