dash ( and the new world order )

[Scott James Remnant]

On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 08:11 -0500, Rocco Stanzione wrote:

> On Friday 15 September 2006 3:18 am, Ante Karamatic wrote:
> [snip]
> > But upstart executes same scripts which init executes also. Bringing
> > back bash instead od dash would result in slower boot with both init and
> > upstart. Upstart doesn't speed up booting (it can/could be side effect,
> > but not main goal). Booting is faster due dash.
> 
> This answers my original question (why dash?).  If it's because dash makes 
> bootup faster, and if there are a lot of third-party (and a few dangling 
> ubuntu) scripts and Makefiles that are not compliant and will break under 
> dash, what about this solution:
> 
> During bootup, sh is /bin/dash.  That gets us the improved start time.  At the 
> end of that process, we re-link sh to bash.  That costs (as far as I can 
> tell) practically nothing, and we eliminate the problems I (for one) have 
> been seeing.
> 
It's not just boot-up ... configure scripts, for example, can be over a
MINUTE faster when run under dash.

I just don't buy the "some people write in bashisms" argument, it is
trivial to change those from #!/bin/sh to #!/bin/bash.  Only Linux has
historically shipped with bash as the default shell, most vendors will
be used to POSIX shell from dealing with other UNIXes.

The switch from bash to dash has been relatively painless for us; you're
asking us to switch back without providing a single shred of evidence as
to why we should!

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060915/8e56aeff/attachment.pgp