Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Justin Wells <jread@semiotek.com> writes:

> I am not concerned with full POSIX complience for /bin/sh

Well, I am.  Why are your concerns more important than mine?

> ash has a long history as a /bin/sh shell, since all the *BSD unixes 
> use it as /bin/sh. 

I don't consider the BSD's to be a good example, they also have a long
history of ignoring standards.  Which is one of the big reasons I
don't *use* the BSDs.  They're annoyingly incompatible with the real
*nixen I often find myself forced to use.  (And "*BSD unixes" is an
oxymoron, IMAO, unless you're talking about really old BSDs that
actually were unixes -- but those used real bourne shell, not ash.)

> Obviously I think it should be static as well. *BSD has a static ash 
> that is about 300k in size, and nobody ever claimed that *BSD systems
> used a lot of memory or was slow as a result of that.

Again, if you want to make OPTIONAL packages with statically linked
whatevers, go for it.  Those who really feel it's important (and don't
find sash sufficient) will be free to use them, and those who don't
want them, or who find sash sufficient, won't have them crammed down
their throats.

First, though, you might want to investigate sash.
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.