Re: bash should not be essential
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> 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.
"Because it is that way now" is NOT necessarily a valid argument for
keeping things the same way. Slavery used to be common, East Germany used
to exist. That is not a valid arguement for the continuance of East
Germany and slavery.
> > It's not like there is significatly more power there than in a
> > normal /bin/sh.
>
> What, pray tell, is a ``normal /bin/sh''?
Maybe ksh, maybe ash. Could someone come up with a rational list of the
POSIX deficiencies in either?
> > 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?
The point is that people are trying to build a system where bash isn't
needed and there isn't a specfic reason we should force them to use it.
Again, "we've always done it that way" is not an acceptable arguement.
> > 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 make a stronger suggestion to that effect. Even if they don't clean
up their rules files, if the installed package doesn't need bash, we've
won something here.
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
Reply to: