Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
GOTO Masanori wrote: My point is: installing debian package needs the debian base system that includes bash. Moreover it's not only glibc package issue. If you have plan to support all base packages with /bin/sh, and that makes easier installation for bootstrapping, I don't complain it. If not, I dislike to get tool/shell limitation for postinst/preinst from the point of maintainance view. The debian base system won't work without libc6. There is no alternative. But it is surely possible to imagine a debian base system without bash. I guess you're talking about bootstrapping (actually you didn't show your purpose). Package dependencies are complex, and it's not only glibc issue. Why don't you use debootstrap and so on? Its not just at bootstrap time. I also thought about a firewall where each new program is an additional risk. Or about an embedded system where memory consumption is still a problem. Or about a tiny ogg player that simply has no need for an interactive shell. If we can reduce the number of dependencies between the packages where possible, then Debian becomes more modular. Imagine a Lego box with most of the basic parts glued together. Nobody would like to play with it. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:36:37 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I guess you're talking about bootstrapping (actually you didn't show your purpose). Package dependencies are complex, and it's not only glibc issue. Why don't you use debootstrap and so on? Its not just at bootstrap time. I also thought about a firewall where each new program is an additional risk. Or about an embedded system where memory consumption is still a problem. Or about a tiny ogg player that simply has no need for an interactive shell. You need to read my comments about the embedded things: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you think memory consumption is problem, please show us the real consumption number. I would like to know about it. If we can reduce the number of dependencies between the packages where possible, then Debian becomes more modular. So please consider the situation that if we switch /bin/bash to /bin/sh, and if it requires another tools to call it, is it we can reduce the number of dependencies? Moreover, did you count up the real package dependencies? libc6.postinst uses ln, update-rc.d, ls, rm, and so on. If you also count up them, why don't you focus the efficiency of using those tools? Imagine a Lego box with most of the basic parts glued together. Nobody would like to play with it. Then please show us the real example, not the imaginary lego box. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:32:53 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: GOTO Masanori wrote: At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at all. If there is no way around this, then it should work with any /bin/sh, not just bash. Why does there is no way around this lead it should work with any /bin/sh? BTW, read libc6.postinst/preinst before replying... If libc6 needs a shell at installation time, then the risk for problems is higher for bash only, than it would be if either bash, dash, ash, busybox, or whatever are supported. The user could use another shell if bash doesn't work for him. My point is: installing debian package needs the debian base system that includes bash. Moreover it's not only glibc package issue. If you have plan to support all base packages with /bin/sh, and that makes easier installation for bootstrapping, I don't complain it. If not, I dislike to get tool/shell limitation for postinst/preinst from the point of maintainance view. What I do not like in Debian are package dependencies that could be avoided. They make Debian more complex than it could be. And libc6 is such a fundamental package that its dependencies can become very painfull. I guess you're talking about bootstrapping (actually you didn't show your purpose). Package dependencies are complex, and it's not only glibc issue. Why don't you use debootstrap and so on? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so, why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping base system. While policy currently has bash in the base system, it might not always. David is involved with alot of embedded work and so far most people have cheerfully taken his patch. Being able to go from bash to dash in an embedded system would save 566.6k. In most cases moving from requiring bash to requiring a pure posix shell is just a matter of a couple cosmetic changes. -- Jeff Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: I have read libc6.preinst and postinst, but I am not sure what you are trying to tell? There are some $() inside which could be replaced by `` to support other shells, $() is supported by all POSIX shells. It's not a bashism. Shells so old as not to support this are unlikely to work properly for other reasons. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_03 -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:38:21 -0400, Jeff Bailey wrote: BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so, why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping base system. While policy currently has bash in the base system, it might not always. Yes, that's one of good reasons. However should we need to assume it might not always just now? David is involved with alot of embedded work and so far most people have cheerfully taken his patch. Being able to go from bash to dash in an embedded system would save 566.6k. In most cases moving from requiring bash to requiring a pure posix shell is just a matter of a couple cosmetic changes. So who do use debian packaging system on the embedded system? libc6 has a lot of incidental parts; /lib/tls, zoneinfo and documents. It's large package. If the space efficiency is the primary focus, remove them first. This means that it's hard to use debian packaging system on their small storage directly. Moreover, if you use debian packaging system, and your storage is very limited (especially small flash devices for embededd machine), you need to be careful of the installed size because we cannot estimate the actual storage consumption. It may be overflowed. So I think the keyword embededd misleads this discussion. Yes, it's good idea to use only posix shell. I agree with it. However, I think don't use bash-ism does not always become the reason. Some people cannot see the wood for the trees. BTW, if you want to save space on your small gadget, busybox is great one. busybox provides not only shell but also other tools like ls, mkswap, and so on. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
GOTO Masanori wrote: At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at all. If there is no way around this, then it should work with any /bin/sh, not just bash. Why does there is no way around this lead it should work with any /bin/sh? BTW, read libc6.postinst/preinst before replying... If libc6 needs a shell at installation time, then the risk for problems is higher for bash only, than it would be if either bash, dash, ash, busybox, or whatever are supported. The user could use another shell if bash doesn't work for him. I have read libc6.preinst and postinst, but I am not sure what you are trying to tell? There are some $() inside which could be replaced by `` to support other shells, but it doesn't look that difficult. Please don't get me wrong: I like bash. I am using it for about 10 years as my login shell. I completely agree that there should be no system without it. What I do not like in Debian are package dependencies that could be avoided. They make Debian more complex than it could be. And libc6 is such a fundamental package that its dependencies can become very painfull. Regards Harri
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Fri, 27 Aug 2004 05:44:30 -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: If you have concrete reason to use /bin/bash, please tell us. It's also good idea to send us the non-bashism shell script. Otherwise, I prefer to close it. I have some of this already from David Weinholdt but I'm waiting until after Sarge releases to put it in. That's nice. Technically policy says that if we're using /bin/sh, we should be pure posix, (No XSIisms, even). However, glibc has existed like this for multiple releases, and if this becomes an RC bug, I think we should just ask the release managers to ignore it for Sarge. Yes, indeed. I don't think it's sarge RC bug. BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so, why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping base system. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
GOTO Masanori wrote: BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so, why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping base system. Most of the other packages don't work without libc6, including bash. If libc6 depends upon a complex shell like bash, then the chain of dependencies gets even longer. Its a higher risk. IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at all. If there is no way around this, then it should work with any /bin/sh, not just bash. Just my $0.02. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: GOTO Masanori wrote: BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so, why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping base system. Most of the other packages don't work without libc6, including bash. If libc6 depends upon a complex shell like bash, then the chain of dependencies gets even longer. Its a higher risk. IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at all. If there is no way around this, then it should work with any /bin/sh, not just bash. Why does there is no way around this lead it should work with any /bin/sh? BTW, read libc6.postinst/preinst before replying... Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:39:30 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: libc6 depends on bash (see /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.preinst), but doesn't list it in the Depends list. Would it be possible to fix the package header? No. It's required package. At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:11:18 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: PS.: Maybe you could consider to use /bin/sh instead? This would make it easier to setup a minimum system based upon dash or ash, for example. Bash is required package, so minimum base system should have bash. If you don't use such debian base system, then libc6.postinst becomes meaningless because you don't use the normal debian system. Most packages use /bin/sh for their dpkg scripts, as it seems. I don't know it's OK to change from bash to sh. IIRC, libc6.preinst uses bash-ism syntax. Comparing libc6 and most packages are unfair. libc6 shell scripts are a bit larger than most packages as you know. If you have concrete reason to use /bin/bash, please tell us. It's also good idea to send us the non-bashism shell script. Otherwise, I prefer to close it. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: If you have concrete reason to use /bin/bash, please tell us. It's also good idea to send us the non-bashism shell script. Otherwise, I prefer to close it. I have some of this already from David Weinholdt but I'm waiting until after Sarge releases to put it in. Technically policy says that if we're using /bin/sh, we should be pure posix, (No XSIisms, even). However, glibc has existed like this for multiple releases, and if this becomes an RC bug, I think we should just ask the release managers to ignore it for Sarge. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
GOTO Masanori wrote: Bash is required package, so minimum base system should have bash. If you don't use such debian base system, then libc6.postinst becomes meaningless because you don't use the normal debian system. I do not understand why you refuse to add this dependency to the control file. libc6 is a required package too (much more required than bash), but still it is listed in all affected headers, AFAICS. Just by chance I stumbled over this. If you think that the dependency should not be listed in control, then feel free to close this report. Thanx anyway Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 06:19:05PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: GOTO Masanori wrote: Bash is required package, so minimum base system should have bash. If you don't use such debian base system, then libc6.postinst becomes meaningless because you don't use the normal debian system. I do not understand why you refuse to add this dependency to the control file. libc6 is a required package too (much more required than bash), but still it is listed in all affected headers, AFAICS. Essential: yes packages do not need to be listed in dependency fields, by definition, and it's considered somewhat bad style for them to be listed; lintian complains about it, for instance. libc6 is not Essential: yes (libraries cannot be), although bash is. See the Debian Policy Manual. In any case, most dependencies on libc6 are versioned, so even if it were Essential: yes this would be irrelevant. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.2.ds1-16.0.0.1.amd64 Hi folks, libc6 depends on bash (see /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6.preinst), but doesn't list it in the Depends list. Would it be possible to fix the package header? Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267594: libc6 depends on bash
PS.: Maybe you could consider to use /bin/sh instead? This would make it easier to setup a minimum system based upon dash or ash, for example. Most packages use /bin/sh for their dpkg scripts, as it seems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
