Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static
ash has a long history as a /bin/sh shell, since all the *BSD unixes
use it as /bin/sh.
I am not concerned with full POSIX complience for /bin/sh, providing I
get everything I would normally expect a Bourne shell to have. And ash
does you that.
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.
If you link it dynamically you can get it down to about 100k. Let's
hope that 200k you saved was really worth it, and that many systems
out there would be unable to install Debian if the distribution grew
by a whopping 200k.
Justin
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:44:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: