On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote: > +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]: > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was > > > to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh. > > > > > Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash or > > > bash can be /bin/sh. > > > > This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal, > > the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh > > for *everyone*. > > > > See also: Linux is not about choice. > > > > All this added complexity to provide users a "choice" about something that > > doesn't matter undermines the robustness of the base system. Please stop. > > > > Yes, the diversion hack should be superseded by a single, static symlink > > belonging to the dash package, and the rest of this pointless complexity > > should be jettisoned. > > I'm very keen to lose the diversion hack. It causes pain for > cross-debootstrapping, especially on embedded images.
If /bin/sh is no longer a diversion by dash/bash then that frees up the use of diversions for the admin or other packages. So that works too. > Someone would need to make a case for replacing dash as /bin/sh. What > do we get for enabling /bin/mksh fill that role too, for example? If > it really is just better then why not just swap from dash to mksh and > everyone can benefit? So lets say I'm convinced mksh is the better /bin/sh for everyone. How do I test that it actualy works at all? How do I get other people to test? Currenlty there is no way to say: "Here, try installing this packages and report if anything breaks". > Swappable system shells is a nice idea, but Steve is right that it's a > critical thing that really does need to work so there has to be some > real gain from futzing with it. If it can be done cleanly then great. > If not then lets see if we can't just pick one (almost) everyone can > live with. > > Wookey Problem is Debian picked *2* and both created a diversion on /bin/sh and play ping-pong with that. At the time the system-shell-* solution was considered there was no way for e.g. bash to not ship /bin/sh. It seems now that has changed so yeah, maybe we can go to just simply a plain /bin/sh. Then people that want a different /bin/sh, and there are those, are free to use diversions again. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130516104405.GF2181@frosties