On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Matus "fantomas" Uhlar wrote:
> -> echo -ne "Restarting apache web server: "
> "echo -n" is enough for this and works even in ash
OK, yes the -e is just for interpreting \n and friends...
> -> And anyway, why would you want to insist on 'ash' ?
> faster, smaller etc. it could be ksh or whatever does /bin/sh point to.
Certainly, a 100k binary vs. the 400k of bash is much tighter, and the
POSIX-compliance feature of ash is certainly useful, but in Debian we're
talking about a system where lots of packages are dependant on the moster
that is PERL to do basic post-configuration, so a debate over 300k and a
few milliseconds seems fairly insignificant when compared to the megabytes
and seconds that perl will take to start up on 486s and m68k..
> sh ios just symlink to bash.
Oh :) Hadn't noticed that before :)
> that's it, i don't like scripts that "require" bash if they don't have to.
So have you actually removed bash from your system and made ash the
I think the whole point was that bash is recognised as THE standard shell
(in the Linux community as opposed to the *BSD one, anyway) whether we
like it or not.. and this is dictated by the fact that it's in the
base2_2.tgz, because it is so core to the basic function of the system.
If ash provided all the facilities of bash, there's little question it
would be the default shell..
So to this end, Require'ing ash would add to the system overhead since (I
reckon) 98% of people would need to have ash installed for them, instead
of just using a standard package that everyone has already...