Dash as default shell
ibmalone at gmail.com
Fri Oct 17 08:42:42 UTC 2014
On 8 October 2014 12:35, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at redhat.com> wrote:
Been away for a week and come back to this nonsense. Why put so much
effort into arguing *against* having the right interpreter listed at
the top of a script. Seems pretty perverse to insist it should be
/bin/sh to maintain a conflation that's unique to RH.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 6 October 2014 17:28, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > usage/requirement as well. Bringing the benefits of supporting dash to…
>> >> > the satisfaction of pedantically using the POSIX /bin/sh path as
>> >> > frequently as possible?
>> >> Also known as portability, compatibility
>> > Upstreams can be interested in cross-distro portability and compatibility.
>> > I don’t see much benefit for Fedora and Fedora’s users.
>> Fedora is never upstream? Ever?
> The cases where Fedora is both a distribution and upstream happen, but in these cases the difference doesn’t matter. It’s the other cases, where the roles are separate, that allow us to judge where the benefit, effort and policy should be allocated.
Fedora is upstream for packaging and remixes. I tried to illustrate
that, but you've cut it from the quotes.
>> >> and transparency.
>> > Perhaps for changing the #! line; adding yet another programming language
>> > to the OS would make it more complex and thus _reduce_ transparency.
>> Not another programming language, one that is already being used.
> If they have so different features and syntax that people writing scripts need to be aware of this, they are different languages. Or to put it the other way, if they were the same languages then assumption that /bin/sh is bash couldn’t matter.
And they're not the same, which is what the whole discussion about, so
it does matter.
>> >> Do we
>> >> encourage people to turn compiler warnings off?
>> > No, but most compiler warnings are useful _for increasing quality
>> > noticeable to users of Fedora_. A warning about use of a bash construct
>> > when we are using bash doesn’t help us help users.
>> Getting dependencies right isn't helpful?
> That’s what I said, and I think I said why. If you think that changing dependencies, when it would change neither behavior nor on-disk contents is helpful, could you explain how?
Because they're the true dependencies.
Anyway I'm off to change gcc to a link to g++ on my systems because
they're close enough it shouldn't matter.
More information about the devel