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.
> > Yes, that's definitely my position. From what I can see, engineering a > > solution where dash doesn't need to be essential isn't worth *any* effort, > > because IMHO, so far the arguments for being able to remove dash from the > > system appear entirely contrived. > What about Manojs argument of having user scripts that (falsely) use > bashism and #!/bin/sh or user accounts with /bin/sh as login shell? > The proposed solution would allow the admin to choose what shell is > /bin/sh and even more so would keep bash as /bin/sh on existing > systems unless as different /bin/sh is specificaly configured. Permitting the user to choose where /bin/sh points is orthogonal to whether dash is Essential. There's already support for user configuration of the /bin/sh link, and my understanding is that the proposal actually on the table doesn't change that. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
