Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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 th
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 ques
On Sun, Jul 26 2009, 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.
>
> From the discussion there seem to be three groups:
> - embedded: wa
Frans Pop writes:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2009-07-23, Frans Pop wrote:
>>> In addition all shells supported as defaults would need to be included
>>> on CD images. And the selected shell would of course have to be set as
>>> the default for new users.
>>
>> Strike the "of course". If I wan
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-23, Frans Pop wrote:
>> In addition all shells supported as defaults would need to be included
>> on CD images. And the selected shell would of course have to be set as
>> the default for new users.
>
> Strike the "of course". If I want my users to have zsh as a
Hi Sam,
on Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 16:53 -0400, you wrote:
> > "Siggy" == Siggy Brentrup writes:
[snipping nonsense and reply]
My sincere apologies for that nonsense, my only excuse is that I was
overtired and I'm quite concerned about this issue not being solved in
5 years I've be away from d
Goswin von Brederlow (24/07/2009):
> Give me the freedom to choose.
It looks like we just reached the “Linux is about choice” Goswin point.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Philipp Kern writes:
> On 2009-07-25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The existing dash package uses dpkg-divert, which is unsuitable on a
>> larger scale (larger than the one dash package). And to have bash
>> removable dash has to force itself as /bin/sh. So there goes even that
>> little choic
On 2009-07-25, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> The existing dash package uses dpkg-divert, which is unsuitable on a
> larger scale (larger than the one dash package). And to have bash
> removable dash has to force itself as /bin/sh. So there goes even that
> little choice.
>
> What alternative do yo
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> But that should be a choice. Not forced upon the user. As Manoj has
>> said now a few times, many things will break for users even if all of
>> Debian is dash fixed. By making /bin/sh choosable everybody wins.
>>
>
> Who said anything abo
Gabor Gombas writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:31:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Why would you think the one transition would be helpfull in the second
>> or that there would be less breakage in the second if we do the first
>> one first? I would rather say you are doubling the p
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> But that should be a choice. Not forced upon the user. As Manoj has
> said now a few times, many things will break for users even if all of
> Debian is dash fixed. By making /bin/sh choosable everybody wins.
>
Who said anything about not offering the user to choose w
On 2009-07-25 09:53:06 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:38:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > What's the advantage of having it be zsh? Is zsh faster than
> > > dash? Or is the only savings the elimination of the 84k das
Clint Adams wrote:
[not replying off-list because that seems counterproductive and arrogant]
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:15PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be
Bourne-compatible. That's my experience with the current version:
Not much
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:15:43PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And what if my posh is compiled against uclibc? You never know.
> For embedded systems that is not too far fetched.
The embedded system developers could just as easily build dash against
uclibc instead of posh.
Stop being dif
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:38:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
> >> the system when my default shell
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:31:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Why would you think the one transition would be helpfull in the second
> or that there would be less breakage in the second if we do the first
> one first? I would rather say you are doubling the problems and
> breakages as th
[not replying off-list because that seems counterproductive and arrogant]
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 03:49:15PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Actually, if it's invoked as /bin/sh, it is supposed to be
> Bourne-compatible. That's my experience with the current version:
Not much effort is put into
Peter Samuelson writes:
>> Steve Langasek writes:
>> > What's the advantage of having it be zsh? Is zsh faster than dash? Or is
>> > the only savings the elimination of the 84k dash binary from /bin?
>
> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>> Plus the libaries dash depends on (if they differ from posh)
>
>
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > What's the advantage of having it be zsh? Is zsh faster than dash? Or is
> > the only savings the elimination of the 84k dash binary from /bin?
[Goswin von Brederlow]
> Plus the libaries dash depends on (if they differ from posh)
NEEDED libc.so.6
Oh well,
On 2009-07-24 15:49:15 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 08:31:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > zsh has also historically been fairly buggy in corner cases as
> > /bin/sh and requires explicit commands to make it
> > Bourne-compatible. Autoconf has had to add a bunch of wo
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> If the goal is to make *bash* removable, then I can understand why
>> that would be helpful to some people since it's the heavier shell by
>> far.
>
> Right.
>
>> None of what you're talking about in this subthread
Gabor Gombas writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
>> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
>
> posh (or "strict POSIX" in general) is simply not practica
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
>> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
>
> Why would you set your default shell to posh? It's only margina
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:31:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
>> >> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
>> >> I *think* that was the point of your message but
Gabor Gombas wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
posh (or "strict POSIX" in general) is simply not practical, and zsh is
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
>> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
>
> Why would you set your default shell to posh?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 08:31:55AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> zsh has also historically been fairly buggy in corner cases as /bin/sh and
> requires explicit commands to make it Bourne-compatible. Autoconf has had
> to add a bunch of workarounds for zsh as sh that I'm sure most of our
> shell scr
Steve Langasek writes:
> What's the advantage of having it be zsh? Is zsh faster than dash? Or
> is the only savings the elimination of the 84k dash binary from /bin?
zsh has also historically been fairly buggy in corner cases as /bin/sh and
requires explicit commands to make it Bourne-compati
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
posh (or "strict POSIX" in general) is simply not practical, and zsh is
even more bloated th
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:31:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think you are not going far enough. Why should I have dash on
> the system when my default shell is posh? or (gasp) zsh?
Why would you set your default shell to posh? It's only marginally smaller
than dash, and my und
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:04:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> >> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere independent of
>> >> what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's not obvious to me.
>
>> > As long as /bin/sh refuses exte
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:10:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > We want everyone to use dash by default.
>
>> Who is we? Why is the sysadmin not the one making the decision?
>> Why is the Vendor making this decision for the user?
>
> Bec
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
>
>> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
>> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes:
Steve> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
>> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution
>> where dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
I *think* that was the point
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
>
>> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
>> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
>> I *think* that was
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:31:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
> >> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
> >> I *think* that was the point of your message but am not entirely sure.
> > Ye
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:04:03PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If the answer is that we really do want it everywhere independent of
> >> what /bin/sh is, that's fine. However, that's not obvious to me.
> > As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with you, but
> > bashism h
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
>
>> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
>> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
>> I *think* that w
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:33:21AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
> Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
> dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
> I *think* that was the point of your message but
Steve, let's take a step back and calm down.
Are you saying that your objection to engineering a solution where
dash doesn't need to be essential is that it's not worth the effort?
I *think* that was the point of your message but am not entirely sure.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-re
Siggy Brentrup wrote:
>> Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
>> ago about dash and bash.
>
> These discussions are extremely long standing :) The move away from
> bash has been aimed at long before I vanished from the project in 2004.
> I'm really upset that 5 yea
Ben Finney writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> Frans Pop writes:
>>
>> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> I think we can engineer a system where Debian suggests various
>> >> shells as the default shell, and the user selects one. And only the
>> >> selected default shell is one that can't
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:10:54PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We want everyone to use dash by default.
> Who is we? Why is the sysadmin not the one making the decision?
> Why is the Vendor making this decision for the user?
Because there's no reason for an end user to care about
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Frans Pop writes:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I think we can engineer a system where Debian suggests various
> >> shells as the default shell, and the user selects one. And only the
> >> selected default shell is one that can't be removed from the
> >> syst
Frans Pop writes:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can engineer a system where Debian suggests various
>> shells as the default shell, and the user selects one. And only the
>> selected default shell is one that can't be removed from the system.
>
> Debian Installer could in theory support
On Thu, Jul 23 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I think we can engineer a system where Debian suggests various
>> shells as the default shell, and the user selects one. And only the
>> selected default shell is one that can't be removed from the system.
>
> Debian Installer coul
On 2009-07-23, Frans Pop wrote:
> In addition all shells supported as defaults would need to be included on
> CD images. And the selected shell would of course have to be set as the
> default for new users.
Strike the "of course". If I want my users to have zsh as a default that's
different fr
On 2009-07-23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> As long as /bin/sh refuses extensions to posix I agree with you, but
>> bashism has been a cuss word for years before 2004.
> Source? Policy does not even ban bashims for maintainer scripts.
Surely not, it just tells you to use bash in the shebang
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we can engineer a system where Debian suggests various
> shells as the default shell, and the user selects one. And only the
> selected default shell is one that can't be removed from the system.
Debian Installer could in theory support this by having a default sh
On Thu, Jul 23 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
>> ago about dash and bash.
>>
>> I agree we want to move the default /bin/sh to /bin/dash.
>> However I'm failing to understand why we want dash to be essential.
>
> "Siggy" == Siggy Brentrup writes:
8
>> I agree we want to move the default /bin/sh to /bin/dash.
>> However I'm failing to understand why we want dash to be
>> essential. If I'm not using dash as my /bin/sh why do I need
>> it?
Siggy> So you are complaining about a smal
On Thu, Jul 23 2009, Siggy Brentrup wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:19 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
>> ago about dash and bash.
>
> These discussions are extremely long standing :) The move away from
> bash has been aimed a
> "Luk" == Luk Claes writes:
Luk> We want everyone to use dash by default. If someone does not
Luk> want to use the default, they are free to do so, but the
Luk> default system shell is supposed to always be on the system.
Why?
I agree something should always provide /bin/sh.
I do
Siggy Brentrup writes:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:19 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>
>> Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
>> ago about dash and bash.
>
> These discussions are extremely long standing :) The move away from
> bash has been aimed at long before I v
Sam Hartman wrote:
Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
ago about dash and bash.
I agree we want to move the default /bin/sh to /bin/dash.
However I'm failing to understand why we want dash to be essential.
If I'm not using dash as my /bin/sh why do I need it?
>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:19 -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
> ago about dash and bash.
These discussions are extremely long standing :) The move away from
bash has been aimed at long before I vanished from the project in 2004.
I'
Folks, there was a longish discussion on IRC starting about an hour
ago about dash and bash.
I agree we want to move the default /bin/sh to /bin/dash.
However I'm failing to understand why we want dash to be essential.
If I'm not using dash as my /bin/sh why do I need it?
If the answer is that
59 matches
Mail list logo
