1 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> FWIW/IMHO, I don't believe the news item needs mentioning that it was bash |
3 |
> that made it slow and inflexible. Most users don't so much care whether |
4 |
> it's C or bash or java that made it so, only that it was. |
5 |
|
6 |
If this were Ubuntu I'd be inclined to agree. However, I think that |
7 |
most Gentoo users would be interested. Maybe I have a different |
8 |
perspective because I just gave a talk on booting two nights ago at an |
9 |
LUG, but I wasn't even the one to bring up the shortcomings of bash in |
10 |
the typical linux SysVInit-based service scripts. Various approaches |
11 |
that were discussed included symlinking /bin/sh to dash instead of |
12 |
bash, and C-based solutions (or a combination of both). It was |
13 |
interesting to hear that at least a few other distros struggle with |
14 |
bashisms in their init scripts, but no so much due to licensing/BSD |
15 |
issues but because of a desire to use dash which does not support all |
16 |
bashisms. |
17 |
|
18 |
No need to go into gory details, but mentioning that it is C-based |
19 |
instead of bash-based seems reasonable. Granted, we're not really |
20 |
getting rid of one of the problems with bash, which isn't just |
21 |
/sbin/rc but rather it includes the init scripts themselves (every one |
22 |
of which requires spawning a new bash, and many spawn additional |
23 |
processes like sed/awk/etc). |
24 |
|
25 |
Rich |