Hi again,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> I _do_ have to deal with minimal systems.
Ok, that makes more sense. (Keep in mind that you're talking about
97284 bytes on i386 here, plus 15199 bytes of control files and an
entry in dpkg's "status" file. Manpages and documentation can be
excluded with a dpkg
On 06/21/12 21:29, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> I guess I'm confused about why you filed this bug report and not a
> different one, especially given the subject line. Perhaps this is a
> request to make bash the default shell by removing dash altogether?
>
I _do_ have to deal with minimal systems.
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> On 06/21/12 13:49, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Is the size of dash a problem for you?
>
> I am more interested in compatibility and efficiency.
Thanks for clarifying. Is your concern then about what the default
shell is, rather than whether dash should be optional?
I guess I
On 06/21/12 13:49, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> Is the size of dash a problem for you?
>
I am more interested in compatibility and efficiency.
Surely I don't want to argue about which shell is better.
I understand that dash has a much smaller working set
and a significant speed advantage at boot
reassign 619820 dash
affects 619820 + bash
severity 619820 wishlist
quit
Hi Harri,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Are there any system shell scripts in Debian that do
> _not_ work with bash? Would such an incompatibility be
> seen as a bug?
If a packaged shell script uses #!/bin/sh and doesn't work wit
Any news about this?
I learned from the messages in this report that dash is
essential for "good style" system scripts, while bash
is essential for user scripts, login, etc., and as a last
resort for the scripts with bashisms.
Are there any system shell scripts in Debian that do
_not_ work with b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just a short remark: I tried to install Websphere 7 on
Squeeze. IBM's installer silently got stuck. After moving
the /bin/sh symlink from dash to bash the installation went
fine. This problem took me a lot of time :-(.
Of course this is not a failure
this should be saved in the bug log.
cheers!
--- Begin Message ---
Ben Finney writes:
> Luk Claes writes:
>> Well, by making dash the default *system* shell. bash is still the
>> default user shell.
> So, does that mean ‘bash’ and ‘dash’ should both remain essential?
Practically speaking, I
Luk Claes writes:
> On 03/28/2011 12:05 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sonntag, 27. März 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> >> # which packages are essential affects the entire distribution
> >> reassign 619820 general
> >
> > For the distro we have solved^wdecided this by making dash the default
On 03/28/2011 12:05 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> reassign 619820 dash,bash
> block 619820 by 540512
> thanks
>
> On Sonntag, 27. März 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> # which packages are essential affects the entire distribution
>> reassign 619820 general
>
> For the distro we have solved^wdecided
reassign 619820 dash,bash
block 619820 by 540512
thanks
On Sonntag, 27. März 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> # which packages are essential affects the entire distribution
> reassign 619820 general
For the distro we have solved^wdecided this by making dash the default shell.
cheers,
Hol
# which packages are essential affects the entire distribution
reassign 619820 general
quit
Hi,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
> I cannot remove dash nor bash. Both are marked as essential packages.
> One shell should be enough for a minimal system.
That's a good point. Raphael, do you remember why dash
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Package: dash
Version: 0.5.5.1-7.4
I cannot remove dash nor bash. Both are marked as essential packages.
One shell should be enough for a minimal system.
Please reassign, if necessary
Regards
Harri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4
13 matches
Mail list logo
