On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 05:10:59PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > You're correct of course. If we want to go this way there should be two > questions: one for the system shell to use and one for the default user > shell, each with per-arch defaults.
Do you really think that the latter warrants a question? Admins can set their own policies by wrapping adduser; derivers can set their own policies by modifying the adduser package. > From the discussion there seem to be three groups: > - embedded: want to have only a single, lightweight shell installed for > both system and users; > - generic: want a fast system shell, but a more powerful shell for users; > - conservative: don't want to run any risk with script incompatibilities > and thus want to have the same, powerful shell for system and users. > It seems to me all three are valid. Has anyone actually said in this thread that "I'm developing an embedded system and I want the user shell to be dash"? dash is a terrible user shell, after all. Otherwise, yes, these are all valid cases, but I don't think that's really been a point of contention here; the only contention has been: - which configuration is the default? - do we need to generalize beyond dash and bash to meet these use cases? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org