Re: /bin/sh (was Re: jessie release goals)
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ 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 Yes, the diversion hack should be superseded by a single, static symlink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.
If /bin/sh is no longer a diversion by dash/bash then that frees up
the use of diversions for the admin or other packages. So that works
too.
> 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?
So lets say I'm convinced mksh is the better /bin/sh for everyone.
How do I test that it actualy works at all? How do I get other people
to test? Currenlty there is no way to say: "Here, try installing this
packages and report if anything breaks".
> 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
Problem is Debian picked *2* and both created a diversion on /bin/sh
and play ping-pong with that.
At the time the system-shell-* solution was considered there was no
way for e.g. bash to not ship /bin/sh. It seems now that has changed
so yeah, maybe we can go to just simply a plain /bin/sh. Then people
that want a different /bin/sh, and there are those, are free to use
diversions again.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: