On 6/17/20 3:54 PM, Kusoneko wrote: > 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. Debian/Ubuntu has extensive prior art in this matter. It was very important and resulted in very noticeable speed improvements on x86_64 systems with lots of memory and disk storage, because pid 1 used to be shellscripts and doing it in bash is slow and gets even slower the more you fork new scripts. :) Also Linux isn't everything :) and there are plenty of systems where bash is not installed by default. e.g. the *BSDs. Also also, bash is not installed on systems such as alpine linux. So any script assuming /bin/sh is bash, is broken on lots of systems. ... This is not actually a problem, I've used dash as my /bin/sh for years and haven't once encountered a broken script. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
