On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Helmut Grohne <helmut <at> subdivi.de> writes: > > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as > Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? Because /bin/sh is special under Debian policy, as an essential interpreter. So the right thing for the project is to treat *some* POSIX sh implementation specially. I don't think anyone (except you) actually cares if this should be mksh or dash - we care that it should *not* be bash which is too heavyweight, but I don't think there are any strong arguments why mksh or dash should be preferred. Which means that there is no strong argument for switching away from dash, since that change would cause more work and introduce more bugs for no material gain. > It was “suddenly“ in Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there > never was an evaluation of shells. No, you are apparently lacking in historical context. The effort to switch to dash by default began in Debian; it was accomplished in Ubuntu more quickly because Ubuntu had no established userbase at the time and could ignore the problem of local diversions of /bin/sh. Debian then had to play catch-up with the implementation of its own plan. > I still believe the codebase of mksh is better (modulo issues > introduced due to the active development), but I’m happy with > freedom to choose one’s own system shell… The end user can always add a local diversion again to point /bin/sh at mksh if they choose. But I don't see any reason why an end user should care about this, period. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature