On June 17, 2020 7:35:27 PM UTC, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 6/17/20 3:18 PM, Kusoneko wrote: >> On June 17, 2020 7:06:01 PM UTC, "Jack L. Frost" <fbt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 07:18:33PM +0100, Piscium via arch-general >>> wrote: >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> I'm not sure how much utility is in doing this >> >> Pretty much this, to be honest. I don't really see the point of >> changing everyone's /bin/sh for one person's personal preference when >> there isn't really any point in doing so to begin with. > >Completely free, no cost speed improvements have no utility? Reread the >original post. > >-- >Eli Schwartz >Bug Wrangler and Trusted User It has the cost that everyone who uses scripts that use bashisms will inevitably have issues, furthermore, considering Arch only supports x86_64, I've yet to see systems under that architecture have low amounts of memory and 6MB of disk storage is incredibly small. The real question here is "Is it worth forcing people to remove bashisms or specify that the script is meant for bash in their scripts (whichever ones don't do so already) for a speed improvement on a shell scripts that work with dash?" Note that some upstreams will likely not care, and maintainers will have to patch the scripts manually in that case.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
