Re: bash should not be essential
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mark Baker wrote:
> sanvila@unex.es (Santiago Vila Doncel) writes:
>
> > Yes, bash is essential because we always *need* a POSIX shell. But GNU
> > bash provides *two* of them: /bin/sh and /bin/bash. Only /bin/sh should
> > be essential.
>
> However, dangling symlinks are not terribly useful, so it would be nice for
> /bin/bash to be around too.
Obviously I didn't mean that /bin/sh is essential as a "dangling symlink".
We could use hard links too. Or symlinks to /bin/the.real.bash.
But I repeat: this is not the point.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNHbN4CqK7IlOjMLFAQFk3wQAtKi7broJvGdZrMfN/a6PrahEy6k9Jx5p
BTpgAv76JJlRcM6UA0vlBWuA1N/r5gQFXxBSaCuGUhELbCDv/8sF42k4SozwnbiB
4aGteW6yPsxPjgzzSQU9eatRTnQ1hro2+51x3Y+i61Os27xaJ0yorueAWLEVICop
JFUeAlZ/wfs=
=JZSG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: