Em Qui, 2006-05-18 às 17:27 -0300, Margarita Manterola escreveu: > During some tests I've performed, I've found that making the init > scripts run with dash as default shell instead of bash makes the boot > time a 10% faster (6 seconds in a 60 second boot).
Nice... > To make this speed up available to everyone, we have 2 main choices: > 1. Make /bin/sh point to /bin/dash > This option also might imply some extra bugs, but it's believed that > not so many, since there are already quite a number of people with > /bin/sh -> /bin/dash, and they do file bugs when "bashisms" appear. A tool searching for "bashisms" in init scripts and maintainer scripts could help a lot on this... > 2. Change #!/bin/sh for #!/bin/dash in the scripts This would have quite the same effect of having two shells with Essential: yes... > Also, I've heard other options being posed, such as writing all init > scripts (including /etc/init.d/rc) in python. But I do want to > concentrate on what's possible to do for etch or etch+1. I don't think it's a good idea at all, as a shell will always be required in the base system and will always be essential. And... if it was to move to a higher-level language (which I don't think as needed), why not Perl? which is already in the base system and is already an essential package? > So, mainly the question that I want to ask of the rest of the Debian > community is if there are more arguments for or against these options, > and what do you think would be the best route on implementing this. /bin/sh is not /bin/bash, so any bashism in a script run with /bin/sh is a bug. I really think using a more lightweight shell as essential is a good thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
