My stand on the issue of scripts assuming /bin/sh is actually /bin/bash is that this is just plain wrong. It not only makes things a lot slower, on boot particularly, but isn't that difficult to fix: if your script requires /bin/bash, ask for it by name! Submitting patches to all those scripts that require /bin/bash is the punishment for developer laziness. I do wonder about the amount of testing that went into the patch that changed /bin/bash to /bin/sh in Edgy, because the failure reports seem to be coming thick and fast. But, just as kernel developers get to shake the finger when someone abuses the GPL, the entire Linux community should get to shake the finger and glare meaningfully at the developers who assume that they're getting /bin/bash by any name. Linking /bin/bash to /bin/sh is like putting on a blindfold and saying "I must be safe, I can't see the wumpus".
(Besides, it can't be that many shell scripts that require this assumption (i.e. they need functionality which /bin/sh doesn't provide but /bin/bash does). Edgy still boots, after all. I suspect the "millions of scripts" that would require changing is really between ten and fifty.)
"Distros don't get to take the high moral ground, they're supposed to make things work for their users". Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Oh, Michael, you're a funny guy.
All posts licensed under the CC-BY-NC license. Author Paul Wayper.