-> All the more reason to streamline the process...
-> why should everything take more time, just because some stuff must.
that's why i prefer ash
-> > > that's it, i don't like scripts that "require" bash if they don't
-> > > have to.
-> >
-> > So have you actually removed bash from your system and made ash the
-> > default?
->
-> or just install ash and symlink sh -> ash
that's what I did and I wonder why doesn't ash installation script do this
;)
-> It makes a big difference on a slow machine, especially when
-> installing packages ({pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts are always sh).
well, maybe not always. Maybe we should ask developers to use sh and not to
use bashisms while possible
-> > So to this end, Require'ing ash would add to the system overhead since
-> > (I reckon) 98% of people would need to have ash installed for them,
-> > instead of just using a standard package that everyone has already...
well, requiring bash adds _much_ more to system overhead. for example, I use
tcsh and wipe out bash completely
--
Matus "fantomas" Uhlar, sysadmin at NEXTRA, Slovakia; IRCNET admin of *.sk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ ; http://www.nextra.sk/
10 GOTO 10 : REM (C) Bill Gates 1998, All Rights Reserved!
