From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118553 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2017 15:05:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 118538 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2017 15:05:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*f:sk:79698ed, H*i:sk:79698ed, H*MI:sk:79698ed, Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA X-HELO: dragonfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net Received: from dragonfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (HELO dragonfly.birch.relay.mailchannels.net) (23.83.209.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:05:24 +0000 X-Sender-Id: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|lee@dilkie.com Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE5D142CAF for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bancroft.snhdns.com (unknown [100.96.137.18]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4494214416A for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:05:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|lee@dilkie.com Received: from bancroft.snhdns.com (bancroft.snhdns.com [172.20.72.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.7.27); Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:05:22 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: totalchoicehosting|x-authuser|lee@dilkie.com X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: totalchoicehosting X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1487948722514:2139872798 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1487948722514 Received: from [174.35.247.7] (port=3088 helo=[192.168.51.100]) by bancroft.snhdns.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.88) (envelope-from ) id 1chHQv-0001sw-7t for cygwin@cygwin.com; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:05:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: dash-0.5.9.1-1 To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <58AFA559.6010404@cygwin.com> <58afbd3b.4e109d0a.b8e56.e7b8@mx.google.com> <79698ed5-ac1d-99e3-c69c-c82b5dbc75e2@redhat.com> From: Lee Dilkie Message-ID: <4a51815a-94c9-f97e-5be8-613ae67803ce@mitel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <79698ed5-ac1d-99e3-c69c-c82b5dbc75e2@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AuthUser: lee@dilkie.com X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00313.txt.bz2 On 2/24/2017 9:43 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 02/23/2017 10:57 PM, Steven Penny wrote: >>> Or more likely, many people likely have pre-existing scripts wrongly >>> written as #!/bin/sh but which use bash-ism rather than portable >>> POSIX-specified shell >> >> However, I think it is worth the trouble. > > If you'd like, I can post experimental versions of both bash and dash, > which MUST be upgraded (or downgraded) in lockstep, where I move /bin/sh > over to the dash package (do it wrong, and you could be left with no > /bin/sh at all, which is not a good idea - although maybe I can use some > postinstall scripts so that at least the upgrade side tries to play nice > even when someone only does a partial upgrade). If people will then > test with those experimental versions installed, and report breakage, we > could get a feel for how many scripts installed by default are broken. > > But we are severely limited in volunteer manpower compared to Debian, > and I suspect that 1) there won't be enough testers (we won't know the > real impact until it is no longer experimental, but that is too late), > and 2) even if testers are diligent, we will be unable to patch all the > fallout in any sort of timely manner. > > Are you really prepared to force the Cygwin community through that much > growing pain? > > I agree that /bin/sh as dash is much faster at executing configure > scripts. But configure scripts aren't the only scripts in the wild. We > do have checkbashisms ported to Cygwin, and that can help, but it is not > a panacea. > If dash doesn't support all the features of bash (which is incorrectly assumed in some cases for sh), aren't you just asking for trouble by breaking things? -lee -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple