Re: Comments on the "Changing the default system shell" talk
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
I just would like it to be even better. And I haven't seen any real
constructive discussion about different methods of providing
/bin/sh. Mostly just angry replies along the lines of "We don't want
to break things. We do it this way." without disclosing what or why
things would break.
If my reply sounded angry, it was certainly not meant to be.
Currently if you install any shell other than bash or dash to provide
/bin/sh, you have moments were /bin/sh is not available on the system.
This might introduce all kind of breakage and is the breakage we're
Using a mechanism like alternatives for instance does not make sure that
there is always a working /bin/sh on the system.
There seems to be one group of people that would like more flexibility
(including the option of keeping bash as /bin/sh even in the long run)
and the other group being dead set on the dash plan. And no dialog
between the groups. Both sides (and feel free to include me there too)
stay in their corner and say "nay" to each other. It is sad that we
can't discuss the merrits and problems of proposals rationally and
work out a solution that works for all.
It's perfectly fine to have people wanting to have more flexibility.
Note that keeping bash as /bin/sh even in the long run is not at all
excluded the way we implemented the new default system shell btw.
Though working out a solution that works in a more flexible way is far
from trivial and it does not seem like anyone is interested enough to
work on it.