Hi! Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> skribis:
> * gnu/packages/dash.shm: New file. > --- > > Guix! > > IMO this belongs in a (new) shell.scm with fish, tcsh and zsh. > Maybe bash, too. On the other hand: > > Certain shells might have an 'ecosystem' of 'packages', such as > bash-completion in bash.scm, that might justify leaving them in > their own file. I'm thinking specifically of zsh here. > > I'd suggest merging them all and splitting out if and when needed, > but prefer to ask the wisdom of the list before doing that tedious > deed. I would keep Bash separate, but I agree it’s a good idea to merge the other ones in one module. If you want, you could do that and then add Dash to that file? [...] > + (home-page "http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash";) > + (synopsis "POSIX-compliant shell optimised for size") > + (description > + "dash is a POSIX-compliant @command{/bin/sh} implementation that aims > to be > +as small as possible, often without sacrificing speed. It is significantly > +faster than the GNU Bourne-Again Shell (@command{bash}) at most tasks. dash > is > +a direct descendant of NetBSD's Almquist Shell (@command{ash}).") > + (license (list bsd-3 > + gpl2+)))) ; mksignames.c I’d tend to remove “significantly” :-), but otherwise LGTM, thanks! Ludo’.
