Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > 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!
I second this. Significantly faster is subjectiv as long as we do not provide some side by side benchmark results etc. > Ludo’. > -- ♥Ⓐ ng0 Current Keys: https://we.make.ritual.n0.is/ng0.txt For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org
