On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 11:22 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 02-10-2007 09:48:06 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > > What is your rationale to say that "pure sh" is a "bonus"? Especially > > > given the environment this is used in as ferdy already pointed out? > > > > The bonus is that it works on shells other than bash. > > I give you a big chance Solaris' or AIX' /bin/sh won't grok this stuff.
Neither claim to be posix shells either, or didn't last I looked. I say baselayout-2 works with any shell that claims posix. Of course, changing it to bash is a trivial matter also. > > My motivation? Simple. I don't believe that the portage tree should be > > locked into using one shell. I believe that vendor lock-in should happen > > "vendor lock-in" is an interesting term to mention here, as bash is open > source, and I think (I'm not a lawyer) free to use as long as you want, > and modifyable if you like. Just because it's open source does not mean that it won't try and lock you in. > Given my own "history" I have a hard time to believe you are persuing > the right track here. It may or may not be a secret that I currently do > the complete opposite of what you're trying to do -- so far with a good > lot of success, especially given the number of completely different > platforms. > > Question from me to you is, whether your vision is just to get (Free)BSD > working seamlessly with Gentoo, or whether you also look beyond your > current scope to the "Meta Distribution". This includes the benefit of > moving from bash to POSIX(?) sh as standard kit to interpret the meta > information. Changing init.d scripts is one thing, changing the > definition of how the meta information should be read is another thing. A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is no better - it's just replacing one monoculture with another one. Thanks Roy -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
