Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> 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 actually
>> advances that goal, however. The blocker for removing bash is that
>
> Frankly, I think you are overlooking a whole lot of things.
>
> The frst thing you need to do is to not just make bash
> removable, you need to determine of this particular user _wants_ it
> too. You can't just have a limited set of scenarios (people want lean
> /bin/sh) and not (people want all machines in their environment
> behaving closer to each other).
I actualy would like to remove bash. Dash seems to be better as
/bin/sh from what people say. And as interactive shell I use zsh. So
why waste the space with an bloated bash?
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.
>> today, packages invoking /bin/bash are not required by Policy to
>> depend on it. And if they did, we might find that there are Priority:
>> required packages using it, which there's no policy against, making
>> the exercise more or less pointless.
>>
>> Oh yeah - libpam0g is one, and libpam0g is transitively essential.
>
> Again the tunnel vision on packages -- there are users with
> installed bases too, which every one seems to just forget.
>
> The idea I am espousing is that we need to come up with not just
> replace bash with dash, we need to ask the user if they want to change
> the default shell, and whether the new default shell should be dash.
>
> manoj
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
