[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: #!/bin/bash

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> > -> 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..

All the more reason to streamline the process...
why should everything take more time, just because some stuff must.

> > 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
> default?

or just install ash and symlink sh -> ash
It makes a big difference on a slow machine, especially when
installing packages ({pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts are always sh).

> 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...

ash has an installed size of ~168k, and can result in commands being
executed faster than bash can be loaded up on a slow machine... well
worth it (as is using mingetty on the console instead of getty).

- Bruce

Reply to: