On 2014-09-26 15:57, Doug Newgard wrote:
On 2014-09-26 15:00, Benjamin A. Shelton wrote:
On 09/26/2014 10:59 AM, Doug Newgard wrote:
What technical reasons are there against switching out /bin/sh?
Thusfar, I haven't encountered anything particularly noisome (the
ST2's subl launch script being one exception, probably several
others), but there's certainly something lurking in unseen dark
corners. It seems (superficially, at least) that most everything else
is well behaved and asks specifically for /bin/bash where expected.
Should those circumstances where this isn't the case be considered
bugs? I would say "yes," but others might emphatically say "no."
Benjamin
[1]
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/basedefs/xbd_chap08.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almquist_shell
My technical reason is simple, I don't think the base install should
have to include another shell implementation when one is already
available. If you want to switch /bin/sh on your machine, go for it. I
just don't think having it as the default is a good way to go.
I should qualify that in that I don't think adding another package to
base is a good idea *unless* there is a significant benefit to doing so.
The plan to add dash to base when Arch was using initscripts made sense,
it doesn't now that we're using systemd. There's already too much in
base IMO.
Doug
