Re: bash should not be essential
Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> writes:
> Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
> should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is already essential,
that is Debian policy. The onus is on *you* to demonstrate why that
should be changed.
> It's not like there is significatly more power there than in a
> normal /bin/sh.
What, pray tell, is a ``normal /bin/sh''?
> While I can't personally see myself living without bash, and since
> it compiles almost anywhere I don't see myself not having it, I
> don't see the point in needlessly forcing others to use it.
You aren't forcing them to use it; we are forcing them to have it
installed, there is a difference. We have to have a POSIX shell which
is essential (or are you going to dispute that?), why should it not be
bash? If it isn't bash, what do you suggest in it's place?
> I'm sure there are plenty of people who always use tcsh for their
> usual work, which is about half the size of bash.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
dmn21 11991 0.0 2.3 1696 1100 p0 S 16:35 0:00 | \_ -bash
^^^^
james 12201 0.6 2.1 1736 992 p5 S 17:14 0:00 \_ -csh
^^^^
Really? [the csh is really tcsh]
> The below lines are the Installed-Size values from the copys of the
> shells on my drive. People installing in cramped spaces could
> benifit from working with something a tad less bloated (not to
> mention the speed benifit from a smaller, less complex shell).
So what are you going to do? Ban people from using ``bash-ism's'' in
debian/*? Unless you do so, even if bash isn't essential, people are
still going to use ``bash-ism's'' in their scripts and so bash will
still need to be installed. What exactly have you won?
Maybe I'm missing something hugely obvious here (I haven't had much
sleep lately), if so please point it out, rather than just dismissing
my entire email in a sentence without addressing any one of my
arguments.
--
James
Reply to: