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 04-05-2011, 09:05 PM
Jonathan Nieder
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:

>>> * Find a sane solution for managing /bin/sh. Currently diversions are
>>> used, which looks like the wrong tool for this job to me. There are
>>> also some related bugs with a high severity.
>>
>> Also seems to be orthogonal.
>
> I agree that this seems to be orthogonal at first, and even second,
> sight.

And third. The correct way to manage /bin/sh is as a configuration file.
That means:

* dash would stop shipping /bin/sh in its data.tar
* bash would stop shipping /bin/sh in its data.tar
* an essential package (doesn't matter which --- maybe debianutils)
should take care of allowing other shells to influence where
/bin/sh points.

Policy 10.7.4 ("Sharing configuration files") spells this out. It
doesn't have much to do with whether dependencies on bash are made
explicit.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110405210530.GA13445@elie">http://lists.debian.org/20110405210530.GA13445@elie
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:37 PM
Lars Wirzenius
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On ti, 2011-04-05 at 08:52 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm re-running the scripts, which will probably take a few hours, and
> will report results when they're done. If you notice any problems with
> the scripts, please tell me ASAP.

The new scripts look also in maintainer scripts.

New results: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2.list

Summary:

4450 files
973 packages

I further ran checkbashisms on every file in bash2.list, and classified
files accordingly to the exit code: exit code 0 means it's not a bash
script. Result: http://files.liw.fi/temp/reallybash.list

Summary:

1787 files classified as bash scripts
2663 not bash scripts

Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be
off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a
much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list

Summary:

1775 files
621 packages

Assuming I didn't do anything stupid in these scripts or in counting the
results, it looks like it's a reasonably small set of packages that
would need to add a bash dependency. However, that would require all the
#!/bin/bash scripts that don't actually need to be bash to be changed
(and tested etc).

Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.

Opinions?

--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1302104248.2627.88.camel@havelock.liw.fi">http://lists.debian.org/1302104248.2627.88.camel@havelock.liw.fi
 
Old 04-06-2011, 09:11 PM
David Weinehall
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi
>
> bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
> user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
> install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid of bash
> in their environment which is obviously not easily done atm.
>
> The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important is
> obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when it's used
> in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to be changed.
>
> What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
> are part of the base system)?

I definitely like this idea. While I wouldn't ever uninstall bash on my
own laptop/server/whatever (unless someone comes along with a nice
replacement), dropping it on embedded devices makes a lot of sense.


Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window (
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110406211118.GB9488@suiko.acc.umu.se">http://lists.debian.org/20110406211118.GB9488@suiko.acc.umu.se
 
Old 04-07-2011, 07:47 AM
Philip Hands
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:37:28 +0100, Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> wrote:
...
> Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be
> off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a
> much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list
>
> Summary:
>
> 1775 files
> 621 packages
...
> Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
> cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
>
> Opinions?

I think you've demonstrated exactly why we should do this -- at present,
since bash is essential, it would seem that many people have decided
that it's easiest to just use /bin/bash for their scripts, regardless of
whether they need it or not, which is fine on a full blown Debian system
but creates a lot of unnecessary work for EmDebian folks.

It wouldn't surprise me if the need to add a bash dependency would
provoke many of the developers of the packages in question to reexamine
those scripts, realise that in many cases they could be trivially
POSIX-ised, and so reduce that number further. That'll not happen if we
don't make bash non-essential.

On the other hand, my perspective is that of a crusty old git who had to
port stuff to all sorts of not-quite-POSIX systems for years, so I may
just be having a "youngsters need to be taught proper discipline" moment ;-)

Cheers, Phil.
--
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] http://www.hands.com/
|-| HANDS.COM Ltd. http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(| 10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London E18 1NE ENGLAND
 
Old 04-07-2011, 02:41 PM
Lars Wirzenius
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

On ke, 2011-04-06 at 16:37 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
> cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.

OK, so assuming anything is to be done about this at all, here's what I
suggest:

* add a lintian test that detects scripts that are needlessly
#!/bin/bash according to checkbashisms; the test can't be
extremely reliable, but would probably be good enough
* get project consensus on whether bash should remain essential or
not (so far my reading of this thread indicates it is
inconclusive); if there is no consensus, stop here
* add lintian test for packages that contain bash scripts but
don't declare a dependency on bash
* inform the project of bash losing essentialness (mail to d-d-a)
* do a mass bug filing on all packages that a) contain bash
scripts that checkbashisms confirms have bashisms b) do not
depend on bash
* do another mass bug filing on all packages that contain bash
scripts that checkbashisms does not think contain any bashisms
* wait some months for package maintainers to fix their packages
* NMU all packages that have not been fixed

Opinions? I assume it would be the release team's decision about bash
essentialness?

--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1302187274.2441.34.camel@havelock.liw.fi">http://lists.debian.org/1302187274.2441.34.camel@havelock.liw.fi
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:34 PM
Luca Capello
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

Hi Lars!

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:41:14 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2011-04-06 at 16:37 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
>> cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
>
> OK, so assuming anything is to be done about this at all, here's what I
> suggest:
>
> * add a lintian test that detects scripts that are needlessly
> #!/bin/bash according to checkbashisms; the test can't be
> extremely reliable, but would probably be good enough
> * get project consensus on whether bash should remain essential or
> not (so far my reading of this thread indicates it is
> inconclusive); if there is no consensus, stop here

Given how far you have already gone with the analysis, I would stop here
in no case, especially considering...

> * do another mass bug filing on all packages that contain bash
> scripts that checkbashisms does not think contain any bashisms

...there is no point using #!/bin/bash when the script is
POSIX-compliant, since the default #!/bin/sh on Debian (dash) is faster
than bash.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
 
Old 04-07-2011, 05:36 PM
Tollef Fog Heen
 
Default Moving bash from essential/required to important?

]] Luca Capello

Hi,

| > * do another mass bug filing on all packages that contain bash
| > scripts that checkbashisms does not think contain any bashisms
|
| ...there is no point using #!/bin/bash when the script is
| POSIX-compliant, since the default #!/bin/sh on Debian (dash) is faster
| than bash.

There might very well be, such as upstream shipping scripts that are
written to work on both solaris and linux. (Solaris's /bin/sh isn't
POSIX.) Changing this to deviate from upstream would be silly, IMO.

Also, lots of scripts aren't speed-sensitive and people don't want to
think about whether something uses bashisms or not, so they use «#!
/bin/bash» to rather be safe than sorry.

(I think the whole «make bash optional» thing is pointless and a waste
of developer resources. It makes embedded developers's lives slightly
easier at the cost of lots of manual checking, time I think would be
better spent fixing real bugs.)

Regards,
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87oc4ivu9c.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com">http://lists.debian.org/87oc4ivu9c.fsf@qurzaw.varnish-software.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 AM.

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