On Wed, Apr 10, 2019, 1:09 AM Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> wrote: > That being said, it seems like a rather odd place to configure and use a > heavyweight shell merely to allow third parties to include > downstream-specific bashisms. I think there is a great deal of wisdom in > the fact that the referenced issue ( > https://github.com/OpenRC/openrc/issues/288 ) is not accepted (it is > still under discussion).
No there doesn't have to be. The patch simply allows users who already use bash as their shell to easily and properly configure bash as the host shell for OpenRC. Politics on how people should be forced to stay conformant to conservative standards are out of context. Also, oddness doesn't count as an argument. And pretty much everyone who would want to use bash knows that they'll be using a heavier shell. Any idea about idea about breakage, compatibility, change in software feature or performance, something unwarranted and futuristic that could harm the ecosystem, etc., are common knowledge and need not to be emphasized. Anyone who knows how to properly hack software knows when and when not to write portable software. And they know what they gain or lose. Too much conformity hinders innovation. > The commit itself has nothing to do with bash, and is just as useful for > changing openrc to use, for example, a statically compiled POSIX sh > shell that is less likely to break, while /bin/sh is a less > system-critical component -- or even a symlink to the heavyweight bash > that you don't want slowing down your boot process. The commit was explicitly made to "make it possible to use bash for service scripts". It wasn't about using another POSIXist shell that is likely to break less. I thought you saw the referenced issue. And it's been "committed", though still experimental. I'm not sure what you mean by "not accepted", or how important it is for the idea to be. -- konsolebox
