On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 01:44:00PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Ash is just as susceptible to mispackaging as bash is.
Ash depends on few libraries, and on libraries that have shown themselves to be more reliable historically. > *compliance* is a big issue to me, but I'd be open to allowing the use > of ash as /bin/sh *as an option*. Oh wait, it already is! :-) No it's not. Every bash upgrade blows it away without notice or comment. > Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > that the bash package stops replacing a /bin/ash symlink in potato > > I'd prefer just to have /bin/sh managed by the alternatives system. If it can be demonstrated to be reliable enough, I'd accept that. I worry that it's too much complexity for such an important part of the system, but I'm willing to be convinced. > > and that we develop a transition mechanism for changing the default > > in woody. > > Strongly oppose this. We can (and should) fix our *own* bashisms, but > we can't guarantee that *locally installed* scripts don't have > bashisms. It's already an option for the *user* to use ash or ksh or > whatever as /bin/sh. (One that we should support a little better, but > it *is* an option.) But I think *most* people expect, prefer, and > just plain *want* bash to be /bin/sh. I very much feel that we should > keep bash as the *default*, but we should definitely make it easier > for people who want to use something else as /bin/sh. Note that I'm not talking about changing /bin/sh on exisiting systems. I think that's probably going too far. But I think it's reasonable to change the behavior on new systems as long as that change is well documented. It will be easy to change /bin/sh to be bash if that's what you want, but I think that most people don't really care. Mike Stone
