Re: core recovery tools, apt-get, and dpkg should be static
On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:44:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> Ash is just as susceptible to mispackaging as bash is.
Ash depends on few libraries, and on libraries that have shown
themselves to be more reliable historically.
> *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! :-)
No it's not. Every bash upgrade blows it away without notice or comment.
> Michael Stone <mstone@itri.loyola.edu> writes:
> > 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.
If it can be demonstrated to be reliable enough, I'd accept that. I
worry that it's too much complexity for such an important part of the
system, but I'm willing to be convinced.
> > 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.
Note that I'm not talking about changing /bin/sh on exisiting systems. I
think that's probably going too far. But I think it's reasonable to
change the behavior on new systems as long as that change is well
documented. It will be easy to change /bin/sh to be bash if that's what
you want, but I think that most people don't really care.
Mike Stone
Reply to: