Jim McQuillan wrote: > David, > > > I've had lots of script breakage due to this problem. It still puzzles > me why they'd want to stray from the shell that most everyone else uses.
Because bash is huge and unwieldy and if it's the default 'sh', this really contributes to system startup time and package install time among many other things where shell scripts are common. Every time you run a script, it has to load a >1MB binary into ram and parse the script which may only be 10 lines. This is much faster and lower overhead with dash, which is as the LSB requires simply only POSIX compliant. I think there's some documentation on standards that init scripts shouldn't use any bash extensions or so, too? Lots of reason why bash is simply unnecessary. If a script breaks because it references sh instead of bash, then the script is broken, not the fact that sh is dash. -- Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations -- edubuntu-devel mailing list edubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-devel