On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:21:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:03:34AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > I think that, to convince people that flexibility won't cause stability
> > and complexity problems, you're going to need to present a complete and
> > fairly bulletproof implementation plan. Given how difficult the bash to
> > dash transition was, I think it's going to have a fairly high bar to meet.
>
> dash still has two outstanding multiply-release-ignored grave bugs as a
> result of the last transition. A minimum demonstration of competence on the
> part of anyone proposing to change the shell again is to fix those RC bugs
> without introducing new ones.
The system-shell idea fixes axactly those two bugs:
# dash fails to upgrade if /bin/sh is locally diverted
# dash upgrade breaks mksh-as-/bin/sh
You could say the whole reason for the idea were those 2 bugs.
> > That being said, I think removing the use of diversions for handling the
> > default shell and simplifying the current situation would remove
> > complexity, and therefore should be strongly considered. Once that's
> > done, if you really want to change the root shell on your own system, it
> > should again be possible to use a simple local diversion to do so.
>
> Yes.
MfG
Goswin
PS: I never advocated changing the default /bin/sh.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130516111006.GH2181@frosties
