Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> > to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
> > Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash or
> > bash can be /bin/sh.
>
> This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal,
> the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh
> for *everyone*.
>
> See also: Linux is not about choice.
>
> All this added complexity to provide users a "choice" about something that
> doesn't matter undermines the robustness of the base system. Please stop.
>
> Yes, the diversion hack should be superseded by a single, static symlink
> belonging to the dash package, and the rest of this pointless complexity
> should be jettisoned.
I'm very keen to lose the diversion hack. It causes pain for
cross-debootstrapping, especially on embedded images.
Someone would need to make a case for replacing dash as /bin/sh. What
do we get for enabling /bin/mksh fill that role too, for example? If
it really is just better then why not just swap from dash to mksh and
everyone can benefit?
Swappable system shells is a nice idea, but Steve is right that it's a
critical thing that really does need to work so there has to be some
real gain from futzing with it. If it can be done cleanly then great.
If not then lets see if we can't just pick one (almost) everyone can
live with.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: