Re: bash should not be essential
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <sanvila@unex.es> writes:
>
> > > I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do.
> >
> > Well, will they be "legitimate" as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be
> > refused by saying "I don't think it is important, since bash is
> > essential" and closed immediately?
>
> Herbert has been filing bugs, for months now, against packages for
> needlessly using #!/bin/bash when #!/bin/sh would work.
Yes, but this is not exactly what I would like.
Do you consider that small changes in shells scripts so that they can be
made #!/bin/sh instead of #!/bin/bash are worthy to be made?
[ "Worthy" enough to be allowed as a wishlist bug, I mean ].
> > If bash is essential, why don't we just use always #!/bin/bash? :-)
>
> Because if #!/bin/sh would work, it's better to use that, it might be
> ash.
Exactly. The point is: If we support having ash as /bin/sh, are not
we recognizing indeed that bash is not *so* essential, since there may be
other shells with the same *basic* functionality?
> [ ... ]
> do you want something to replace bash in base?
No. being in base or not is not the point. I like to see GNU bash in
base because this is a GNU/Linux system. I'm not discussing bash as a
"default" shell.
I just want (would like) all shell scripts to be #!/bin/sh by policy, so
that bash could be *removed* if the user really does never use it, and
another shell takes care of providing the /bin/sh symlink (for example,
ash, if it proves to be good enough).
> [ ... ]
> > You have to port a lot of packages for one to work, when there is
> > really no need. You can't port a single package. Packages are
> > supposed to be "independent". This independence if what makes them
> > portable.
>
> Do you compile many packages? I'm unlucky enough to have to, and
> trust me, lots of packages have huge *strings* of source-dependencies.
> (e.g. anything using debiandoc*, sgml2*, makeinfo or texi2html).
I trust you. Surely there is a of packages that need a lot of things. But
I think the bad thing is not needing a lot of things. The bad thing is
needing a lot of things *without real need*.
> [ ... ]
> > But the example will be still valid for systems having a POSIX shell
> > as /bin/sh.
>
> Does one exist?
Don't know. But the question would be: If we would have another POSIX
shell other than GNU bash, will be *ready* to make bash non essential?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNGtFTyqK7IlOjMLFAQHPBgP/de4JJ6LXcMzfG1bvLI+sLxAm3sRPqpLt
H3m5eXW7zgHFot5sAGtKrzcITnv6DxcjDZ62ar9Uck5xk/xJX87xDNxhXrihMdri
KUGsNYz63bSdRRJa4DeStp0VCjw6rASwRHuFn7PhxBS93C3ihNZktRFfu4uzs7MR
NxLiG+xHxRQ=
=IIc8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: