On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:57:24PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote: > Hi Eelco, > > >> we should link /bin/sh to Dash instead of Bash. That would catch any > >> implicit dependencies on non-POSIX shell features, > > > > What's the point of that? Breaking zillions of existing scripts for > > very little gain doesn't sound like a good idea to me. > > now I am confused. In the very posting I was responding to, you said: > > | Yes, fix builders not to rely on /bin/sh (or at least not to assume > | it's Bash). > > Apparently, we consider builders broken that assume /bin/sh to be Bash. > So why don't you see the benefit of using a non-Bash shell for /bin/sh > to expose those broken builders? > > Besides, everyone who is running Nix on a host system other than NixOS > potentially *has* a non-Bash /bin/sh. (Which is why this thread was > started.) So it doesn't feel right to say that changing /bin/sh to a > non-Bash shell would "break scripts". That change would just expose > scripts that are broken already.
I understood from niksnut that this change could be done in a branch, without any merge to master until all (most?) works. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
