The 07/08/12, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But that latter is an issue. It may break an (I assume) unknown number > > of existing scripts if used for sh, so I think the likely conclusion > > would be that *both* bash (for sh compatibility) and zsh would have to > > be installed. I'm not opposed to this, but I'll certainly concede that > > there are valid points to be made in opposition. zsh emulates sh when invoked with that name (and so goes for ksh). > We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash, For /bin/bash I understand but for /bin/sh I don't think so. Why /bin/bash is required? Is it because scripts have this shebang or the way they are written? > so the > 'bash' package is installed on the install media. We just install zsh > in addition and default to that as the interactive shell. > > Pierre explicitly said that he wanted to do this release as a test, > and if problems crop up in the feedback due to zsh, then we'll revert > it in a future release. So, please test and let us know of any > problems we might have overlooked. I use zsh for years as default interactive shell without any issue. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
