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

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Michael Stone <mstone@itri.loyola.edu> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:44:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:

> > *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.

Yes, but that's considered to be a bug.  I agree that it's a bug that
*needs* to be fixed.  Ok, it's *supposed* to be an option already.  :-)

> > 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.

Hmm, good point.  But is there really any other way to provide the
flexibility we seem to want with the reliability we obviously need?
Or, should I say, is there any way, period?  So, I'll agree with you
here -- it's a good idea only if it can be shown to be reliable.

So, the first thing to do, IMO, is fix bash so that it doesn't
overwrite /bin/sh.  I think it should provide a link if you don't have
a /bin/sh, but I don't think it should override an existing file/link.

Once we get that fixed, the system will be a lot more flexible.

> Note that I'm not talking about changing /bin/sh on exisiting systems. I
> think that's probably going too far.

Then we're almost on the same page here.  :-)

> But I think it's reasonable to change the behavior on new systems as
> long as that change is well documented.

I think people will find it confusing if Debian is the only distro
that doesn't have bash as /bin/sh by default, and so I'd *rather* keep
it as the default, but I'd *certainly* like to make it easier to use
other POSIX (or even near-POSIX) shells as /bin/sh, for those who
prefer.

So, I think we're basically in agreement on all points except whether
or not ash should actually become the default.  I think that's a
pretty minor point, as long as the admin *can* control it.  Who cares
what the default is if you're not forced to use the default?  :-)

cheers
-- 
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.