<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 October 2014 00:06, Paolo Bonzini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pbonzini@redhat.com" target="_blank">pbonzini@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Il 02/10/2014 11:04, Zdenek Kabelac ha scritto:<br>
<span class="">> It used to give significant boost for automake & libtool based software<br>
> - however at some point libtool started to use bashisms and so you<br>
> cannot just replace /bin/sh -> dash - as build will fail.<br>
<br>
</span>This is wrong.<br>
<br>
libtool detects whether you can use bashisms, and falls back to POSIX<br>
shell constructs if it cannot use them. The non-POSIX constructs are<br>
usually faster because they do not need to fork() the shell. Autoconf<br>
does the same. dash rejects some of these constructs, and accept others.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Actually this might be the most important item in the whole conversation about moving to dash. If dash excepts some bashisms and not others... it isn't a 'default posix' shell and we really need someone to audit it and not expect that just because XYZ project uses it.. that they audited it. [And no this isn't a I want to keep bash as root shell argument, I don't really care what the default exec is as much as it is audited and secure. While it is clear that bash hasn't been that iwth only one maintainer.. I have no idea about dash and I am not sure who does.] </div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">Stephen J Smoogen.<br><br></div>
</div></div>