On Sat November 11 2006 22:10, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > So why not just specify all maintainer scripts just use > /bin/bash? I am not sure. Perhaps because allowing scripts to > specify /bin/sh would allow then to be sped up a trifle when /bin/sh > is a nimbler shell? Is this worth the complexity? we speed up > install times of packages a wee bit at the expense of a much more > complicated policy document? (I know some people think we can move > bash out of Essential one of these days, and well, I think that is > mere wishful thinking and a pipe dream).
"trifle" and "wee" for a modern box can be significant on an older box, in both start up time and the amount of RAM used. I think Debian should specify that maintainer scripts must use /bin/dash... that would also cut down on policy complexity, and not unnecessarily raise the bar with respect what is required to be a usable system. How many more bugs like #271072 and #395140 will be filed if /bin/bash use was mandated for maintainer scripts? What does bash do that can't be done with dash? Should convenience trump usability? What would be more noticeable or significant: the 200k dash package on a modern box, or increased swapping and significantly slower installs on an older one? - Bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
