Re: bash exorcism experiment ('bug' 762923 & 763012)
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 08:42:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > In the case of bash, dpkg can (and does!) use bash explicitly (i.e.,
> > > without going through /bin/sh), so removing bash will pretty much nuke
> > > your system.
> >
> > Hmm, where?
>
> Wouter has been too quick, it's not dpkg. The output shown by Troy points
> to the menu trigger which runs /usr/bin/update-menus which in turn calls
> bash:
> $ strings /usr/bin/update-menus|grep bash
> exec /bin/bash -o pipefail -c '
Menus is kinda nice to have work right, but it's not really 'essential'
So far about the only 'essential' thing I see about bash is some maintainer
scripts and dhclient-script. Yes, it's important, and I'm probably going to
get tired of trying to learn zsh soon and reinstall bash, but I have a
perfectly usable system without it.
libc, /bin/sh, dpkg, apt ... those seem essential. (as well as solving
bug #620898),
Does update-menus really need bash? Why?
Reply to: