On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:42:28PM +0200, Gilles Filippini wrote:
Note that /bin/sh belonging to the bash package for now, your changing
the symlink will be forgotten if you ever install another version of
bash that still has it.
Is there any rational for not using the Debian alternatives
[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]
Hmm, so a switch to dash it is not because of POSIX, but because
of better code and lighter shell for our scripts?
Which is also a good reason for the change.
Yes, it is a good change. I would love to switch every installation
to dash as /bin/sh, but believe the path
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]
Hmm, so a switch to dash it is not because of POSIX, but because
of better code and lighter shell for our scripts?
Which is also a good reason for the change.
Yes, it is a good change. I would love to switch every installation
to dash as
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
What about debconf question?
dash already has one, the idea is to make it essential and default to
yes, so that as soon as it is installed the symlink is changed. If you
wish to have dash
Frans Pop wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hum, AFAIK if it [debconf prompt] defaults to yes, it will be changed on
upgrade for anyone who has not yet seen the question. So that doesn't
work if your plan is to not change it except for new installations.
I've not seen any response to this,
Raphael Geissert wrote:
dash currently is optional, so there will be on a lot of existing
systems on which it is not installed. How is the planned strategy going
to prevent dash becoming the default shell on existing systems when it
gets installed for the first time because of its raised
Frans Pop wrote:
An alternative that is still not pretty, but at least keeps the ugliness
in the packages related to the switch and is fairly straightforward to
implement, would be to make the new dash pre-depend on a new version of
bash and have the maintainer scripts of bash preseed the dash
Russ Allbery wrote:
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
PS: I think that dash is a step toward a truly posix shell, but it is
not yet a posix shell: we still need fewer extentions. So in five/ten
year we will change it again.
I doubt that we're going to move in that direction
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:21:45PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
I
Raphael Geissert wrote:
dash already has one, the idea is to make it essential and default to yes,
so that as soon as it is installed the symlink is changed. If you wish to
have dash installed but not as /bin/sh you can always dpkg-reconfigure
dash.
Why essential? It doesn't provide anything
Quoting Luk Claes (l...@debian.org):
It's enough to dpkg-reconfigure dash for existing installations.
And, by the way, if the switch happens, one has to think about
rewording the current debconf template for dash, that says:
Description: Install dash as /bin/sh?
The default /bin/sh shell on
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@debian.org writes:
PS: I think that dash is a step toward a truly posix shell, but it is
not yet a posix shell: we still need fewer extentions. So in five/ten
year we will change it again.
I doubt that we're going to move in that direction farther than where
dash
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:21:45PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
I understand the concerns about
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:31:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:47:07AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the
Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org writes:
I'd say if /bin/sh points to the current default (/bin/bash), then it
should be modified. OTOH, if it was modified locally by the admin to
point somewhere else, leave it alone.
That would potentially break locally written or installed scripts. Not
Quoting Raphael Geissert (atom...@gmail.com):
Switch the default /bin/sh to dash in the following weeks
/me applauses
(I'm using dash as /bin/sh for about NN years now: IIRC I switched after
Marga's work in the GSOC about the boot process speed up)
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:10:46AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
And so that all users that upgrade do not benefit from the goal of this
change? Even better.
This is to avoid causing undesirable effects when upgrading. People have
always been concerned about such kind of changes, and they
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0500, Raphael Geissert
atom...@gmail.com wrote:
Side effects:
* Errors caused by the use of bashisms.
* Faster boot, builds, and general usage of /bin/sh scripts.
* Reduced memory footprint when running /bin/sh scripts.
Counter side effects:
* During the following
On 25/06/09 at 10:05 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0500, Raphael Geissert
atom...@gmail.com wrote:
Side effects:
* Errors caused by the use of bashisms.
* Faster boot, builds, and general usage of /bin/sh scripts.
* Reduced memory footprint when running /bin/sh
On 2009-06-25 10:05 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Do you have statistics about how many packages would be instantly RC
buggy because they have #!/bin/bash scripts and would now need to
depend or even pre-depend on bash? Since bash is essential, it is a
bug to explicitly depend on bash, and after
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0500
Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think everyone readying this list is more than aware of the
intention to switch to dash as the default /bin/sh.
A lot of work has been done on many sides to make this switch doable
and as
On 25/06/09 at 10:32 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:51:58 -0500
Raphael Geissert atom...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think everyone readying this list is more than aware of the
intention to switch to dash as the default /bin/sh.
A lot of work
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org (25/06/2009):
Still, as a DD, I would like to explicitly switch to dash to help in
spotting possible problems. Can you please consider document how to
switch? I guess switching the symlink is enough, but an entry in
README.Debian saying explicitly so (and
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net (25/06/2009):
On 25/06/09 at 10:32 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
Checkbashisms is a lintian check, right?
No, it's in devscripts.
Yes, it is also a lintian check. Although not as complete, see lintian's
check/scripts file.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Cyril Brulebois wrote, Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:51:46 +0200:
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net (25/06/2009):
On 25/06/09 at 10:32 +0200, Harald Braumann wrote:
Checkbashisms is a lintian check, right?
No, it's in devscripts.
Yes, it is also a lintian check. Although not as complete,
see
Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org (25/06/2009):
Still, as a DD, I would like to explicitly switch to dash to help in
spotting possible problems. Can you please consider document how to
switch? I guess switching the symlink is enough, but an entry in
README.Debian
On 2009-06-25 14:40 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org (25/06/2009):
Still, as a DD, I would like to explicitly switch to dash to help in
spotting possible problems. Can you please consider document how to
switch? I guess switching the symlink is enough, but an
Le jeudi 25 juin 2009 à 15:42 +0200, Gilles Filippini a écrit :
Cyril Brulebois a écrit :
Note that /bin/sh belonging to the bash package for now, your changing
the symlink will be forgotten if you ever install another version of
bash that still has it.
Is there any rational for not
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
What about debconf question?
dash already has one, the idea is to make it essential and default to yes,
so that as soon as it is installed the symlink is changed. If you wish to
have dash installed but not as /bin/sh you can always dpkg-reconfigure
dash.
Cheers,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:10:46AM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
And so that all users that upgrade do not benefit from the goal of this
change? Even better.
This is to avoid causing undesirable effects when upgrading. People have
always been concerned about such
Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes:
For completeness...
checkbashisms started life as basically a copy of the relevant section
of checks/scripts and the two then developed separately.
More recently there's been a crossover between devscripts and Lintian
maintainership (i.e.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Artur R. Czechowski wrote:
What about debconf question?
dash already has one, the idea is to make it essential and default to yes,
so that as soon as it is installed the symlink is changed. If you wish to
have dash installed but not as /bin/sh
Hello everybody,
I think everyone readying this list is more than aware of the intention to
switch to dash as the default /bin/sh.
A lot of work has been done on many sides to make this switch doable and as
smooth as possible and plenty of people has been contributing by testing,
filing bugs,
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Hello everybody,
I think everyone readying this list is more than aware of the intention to
switch to dash as the default /bin/sh.
Summarising:
Unless a major blocker shows up, the switch is going to be done on the
following weeks.
\o/, finally.
Thanks for
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:51:58PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Side effects:
* Errors caused by the use of bashisms.
And the really important side-effect is that user scripts on all sorts
of installed systems could experience trouble.
* Faster boot, builds, and general usage of /bin/sh
Hi,
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
Cheers,
Raphael Geissert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:51:58PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Side effects:
* Errors caused by the use of bashisms.
And the really important side-effect is that user scripts on all sorts
of installed systems could experience trouble.
You are right, you made me
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
So that it will be even more strange
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be modified on existing installations
So that
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:47:07AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh symlink won't be
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 06:47 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
(BTW, scripts not only loads faster under dash, they also run faster in
Dash.)
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:47:07AM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Am Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 05:21:45 schrieb Raphael Geissert:
I just noticed I forgot to say something:
What won't change:
* Bash will still be used as the default interactive shells for users
* the sh
42 matches
Mail list logo
