Re: Switching /bin/sh to dash without dash essential
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:31:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> What about Manojs argument of having user scripts that (falsely) use
>> bashism and #!/bin/sh or user accounts with /bin/sh as login shell?
>> The proposed solution would allow the admin to choose what shell is
>> /bin/sh and even more so would keep bash as /bin/sh on existing
>> systems unless as different /bin/sh is specificaly configured.
> Permitting the user to choose where /bin/sh points is orthogonal to whether
> dash is Essential. There's already support for user configuration of the
> /bin/sh link, and my understanding is that the proposal actually on the
> table doesn't change that.
Where is that support? The dpkg-divert in sid dash is not suitable on
a larger scale. It is a verry limited solution.