FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-28-2011, 10:05 AM
Holger Levsen
 
Default Bug#619820: either bash or dash should be enough

reassign 619820 dash,bash
block 619820 by 540512
thanks

On Sonntag, 27. Mrz 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,
Holger
 
Old 03-28-2011, 05:10 PM
Luk Claes
 
Default Bug#619820: either bash or dash should be enough

On 03/28/2011 12:05 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> reassign 619820 dash,bash
> block 619820 by 540512
> thanks
>
> On Sonntag, 27. Mrz 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.

Well, by making dash the default *system* shell. bash is still the
default user shell.

Cheers

Luk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D90C0F3.6030601@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D90C0F3.6030601@debian.org
 
Old 03-29-2011, 12:08 AM
Ben Finney
 
Default Bug#619820: either bash or dash should be enough

Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> 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 shell.
>
> 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?

--
“There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily |
` escaped the chronicler's mind.” —Douglas Adams |
_o__) |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 8739m6rdny.fsf@benfinney.id.au">http://lists.debian.org/8739m6rdny.fsf@benfinney.id.au
 
Old 03-29-2011, 12:20 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default Bug#619820: either bash or dash should be enough

Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> 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 think bash is going to have to remain essential.
There are innumerable scripts, package build rules, maintainer scripts,
and other things in Debian referencing /bin/bash without declaring a
dependency, particularly since that was one of the common solutions to
bashisms in scripts when we did the cleanup to be able to support dash as
/bin/sh. I don't think there's much to be gained by going through all of
those and requiring them to declare a dependency, particularly given how
much third-party Linux stuff also assumes that /bin/bash is always
available.

So, I think this reduces to whether or not dash needs to remain essential.
I personally think that our default /bin/sh shell should be essential, and
the reasons why we switched to dash for that still apply, so I'm
comfortable keeping it essential.

The problem with instead making "sh" essential is that we'd have to be
very careful about what was allowed to Provide sh. Other people have
discovered, for example, that zsh as /bin/sh has interesting and
surprising issues that can break software that otherwise works with more
common /bin/sh shells. If someone sets up their /bin/sh symlink manually
to point to some other shell, more power to them, but allowing those
shells to Provide sh the way that various awk implementations Provide awk
promises somewhat more interoperability and testing than I think we can
promise.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87zkoeixpi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87zkoeixpi.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
 
Old 03-29-2011, 05:51 AM
Carsten Hey
 
Default Bug#619820: either bash or dash should be enough

* Russ Allbery [2011-03-28 17:20 -0700]:
> Practically speaking, I think bash is going to have to remain essential.
> There are innumerable scripts, package build rules, maintainer scripts,
> and other things in Debian referencing /bin/bash without declaring a
> dependency, ...

I agree.

> So, I think this reduces to whether or not dash needs to remain essential.
> I personally think that our default /bin/sh shell should be essential, and
> the reasons why we switched to dash for that still apply, so I'm
> comfortable keeping it essential.

If a user configures /bin/sh to point to bash, dash isn't used
anymore[1], so there is no reason to have dash installed on this user's
system.

I think dash should remain in base and be installed by default. Reasons
for this include pretended better boot performance and simplifying writing
portable scripts with default configurations.

I also think dash should become build-essential, otherwise ./configure
might detect /bin/sh as bash on hosts with default configurations. For
example, zgrep in Squeeze/i386 uses /bin/bash in it's shebang line, but
would use /bin/sh if it would have pointed to bash whilst ./configure
has been run.

But I do not think dash should remain essential. Before this could be
changed, the mechanism how /bin/sh is handled should be improved (there
are two according RC bugs in dash and two important ones in bash).

> The problem with instead making "sh" essential is that we'd have to be
> very careful about what was allowed to Provide sh.

Given that bash would provide sh and stay essential, additionally making
sh essential wouldn't archive anything (or I do not understand what you
meant by 'making "sh" essential').

> Other people have discovered, for example, that zsh as /bin/sh has
> interesting and surprising issues that can break software that
> otherwise works with more common /bin/sh shells.

Grml used zsh as /bin/sh but switched to bash and later to dash[2]. Some
other shells in Debian, e.g., mksh, don't seem to have such surprising
issues when used as /bin/sh.


Regards
Carsten

[1] unless there are really scripts in Debian that use dash in the
shebang line
[2] http://grml.org/faq/#zsh_binsh


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110329055131.GA25204@furrball.stateful.de">http://lists.debian.org/20110329055131.GA25204@furrball.stateful.de
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org