On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:10:06PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:21:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > I think that, to convince people that flexibility won't cause stability > > > and complexity problems, you're going to need to present a complete and > > > fairly bulletproof implementation plan. Given how difficult the bash to > > > dash transition was, I think it's going to have a fairly high bar to meet. > > dash still has two outstanding multiply-release-ignored grave bugs as a > > result of the last transition. A minimum demonstration of competence on the > > part of anyone proposing to change the shell again is to fix those RC bugs > > without introducing new ones. > The system-shell idea fixes axactly those two bugs: > # dash fails to upgrade if /bin/sh is locally diverted > # dash upgrade breaks mksh-as-/bin/sh It does so in a way that there is not a consensus that we should adopt. I'm saying you need to demonstrate that you can fix these bugs in such a way that dash *exclusively* owns /bin/sh; and once this has been demonstrated, which can only be done conclusively by an upload to unstable that puts the solution in contact with real-world users, we can consider adopting a more complicated scheme that adds the flexibility being discussed. -- 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