Hello! Philip McGrath <phi...@philipmcgrath.com> skribis:
> 1) If we want to continue to hard-code a specific shell into Glibc, I think > we > should document the decision (for example, why 'bash-static' vs. 'bash- > minimal'?) […] The choice of ‘bash-static’ rather than ‘bash-minimal’ is motivated by the fact that, in (gnu packages commencement), we want to make sure ‘glibc-final’ does not retain references to its build-time environment. See #:allowed-references in ‘glibc-final’. > 2) If we want to make 'sh' a weak/dynamic reference, I think we should > strongly consider arranging to make it available at '/bin/sh' when present. I > expect this option would require less patching of other packages *by far* > than > any other approach. This is not a viable option because build containers lack /bin/sh. Overall, I think the current situation is a reasonable tradeoff. It forces us to do some patching, indeed, but I think that’s acceptable: we’re talking about a handful of packages. WDYT? Ludo’.
