Russell Stuart <russell-deb...@stuart.id.au> writes: > Not really. I'm about documentation reflecting reality. Think of > putting an electrical component whose documentation says its 200 degrees > on a motherboard, only to find it fails at 190. When you ask why, is > "well we design it for 200, but only test it to 180" a satisfying > answer?
> You have convinced me that in this case it's going to have to be that > way, so my prejudices notwithstanding. I've rationalised the pain away > by deciding it's no so bad as any competent programmer could see that is > it only tested to 190 regardless of what the standards say. Yeah, I do get that discomfort. I would love for Policy to be more accurate about what's actually happening in the archive. I just don't have much (any) time at the moment to try to push the wording in that direction. > It's attractive because makes Policy more relevant - but only because of > that. Now that I think about it, switching pbuilder to posh would be > almost as good. Any additional pain would not be worth the effort. That would be interesting, although I think that would mostly pick up build issues, which are somewhat different from the issues encountered when running the packages on a system. What we'd really like is something like running autopkgtest tests with posh as a shell, but with much better coverage than we currently have. We're much better at testing our build processes than we are at testing the constructed packages, at least currently. > If Debian was going to switch to another shell, I'd vote for the one in > busybox. That's because on desktop machines it doesn't matter, but on > embedded architectures it does - and they use busybox. So switching to > busybox would extend Debian's reach. Wouldn't that pose a bunch of problems due to the huge number of built-ins in busybox, most of which don't work the same way as the regular program? >> If the speed is comparable > Here are two benchmarks. I did others. These demonstrate the extremes: > $ time dash -c 'i=0; while [ $i -lt 10000000 ]; do echo -n; i=$(($i + > 1)); done' > real 0m16.695s > user 0m16.684s > sys 0m0.000s > $ time posh -c 'i=0; while [ $i -lt 10000000 ]; do echo -n; i=$(($i + > 1)); done' > real 0m41.899s > user 0m41.872s > sys 0m0.000s Yeah, I seemed to remember posh being much slower than dash (although that particular benchmark is a little artificial). > It looks like moving to dash sped Debian up a little. That was supported by boot timings, which are a pretty good simulation of real-world load. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lhom8q3t....@hope.eyrie.org
