Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Luk Claes <[email protected]> writes:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
A faster and smaller default system shell is important to a lot of our
users.
I see this asserted a lot. I am pretty sure that the average
user very likely does not care. The embedded system folks certainly do
--- but I am not sure that the counter assertion that systems will
break if /bin/sh is changed under them do not equal in number the
people who benefit from small default system shell.
I think it is OK to start with dash as the default on new
installations, and to ask if people want to switch older ones. Forcing
the switch would be, in my opinion, buggy behaviour.
Pardon me if forcing the /bin/sh to point to dash on existing
machines is not the plan.
On upgrades you are asked if you want to have dash as default system
shell unless you have dash already installed, then we leave it as is.
Cheers
Luk
Two things:
1) I updated dash the last day and I didn't get asked and I don't
remeber ever having been asked before. Having dash installed before
shouldn't prevent the question. Please do always ask the question if
it wasn't asked before.
If you installed dash before, we assume that you already chose if you
wanted dash as /bin/sh or not. If that's not the case you are welcome to
dpkg-reconfigure dash to change your mind.
2) That changes when dash ships the /bin/sh link.
So the question really is: What mechanism will you use, if any, to
preserve bash as /bin/sh later when dash does ship /bin/sh?
At the moment I don't see any reason why we should change what we
currently implemented which leaves the option to choose bash or dash
while shipping /bin/sh in both packages.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
