Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static
Michael Stone <mstone@itri.loyola.edu> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:31:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > (3) Make ash the default /bin/sh. ash links to libc6 and ld-linux, whereas
> > bash links to libreadline, ncurses, libdl, as well as libc6 and
> > ld-linux. Risk reduction isn't as good as risk removal, but it
> > ain't bad.
> Let's start a roadmap for how to do this. I'm unmotivated by arguments
> of speed or posix purity, but seeing bash break _yet again_ during an
> upgrade has soured me on having a bash /bin/sh.
Ash is just as susceptible to mispackaging as bash is. Posix
*compliance* is a big issue to me, but I'd be open to allowing the use
of ash as /bin/sh *as an option*. Oh wait, it already is! :-)
> I propose that bashisms in /bin/sh be release-critical bugs in
> potato
That part of the proposal I would support.
> that the bash package stops replacing a /bin/ash symlink in potato
I'd prefer just to have /bin/sh managed by the alternatives system.
> and that we develop a transition mechanism for changing the default
> in woody.
Strongly oppose this. We can (and should) fix our *own* bashisms, but
we can't guarantee that *locally installed* scripts don't have
bashisms. It's already an option for the *user* to use ash or ksh or
whatever as /bin/sh. (One that we should support a little better, but
it *is* an option.) But I think *most* people expect, prefer, and
just plain *want* bash to be /bin/sh. I very much feel that we should
keep bash as the *default*, but we should definitely make it easier
for people who want to use something else as /bin/sh.
--
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.
Reply to: