<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:29 AM, B Watson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yalhcru@gmail.com">yalhcru@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Pretty much a separate (possibly off-topic) question here: why would<br>
anyone even care to use ash for /bin/sh on a build host? On an embedded<br>
system it makes sense, but on the dev box where you build its packages?<br></blockquote><div><br>A counter argument might be, why should we preclude the ability to build packages on the system where they are to be deployed?<br>
<br>Slackware has an official ARM port now and while ARM is getting faster, you might still want to run with a lighter-weight shell to conserve memory or improve performance.<br><br>I'm no authority on the matter, but my impression is that it's very "un-Slackware" to dictate that users must conform to an arbitrary default. Especially when that would violate the standard. <br>
<br><br>As far as opening up submissions to other shells, I agree that could become an issue. Perl and Python are also in the default Slackware install but I don't wish to see SlackBuilds written in those languages on SBo. I'm not in a position to set policy but I would suggest that our benevolent admins accept either /bin/bash or /bin/sh, with the polite request that /bin/sh should be used _only_ if it has been tested in another Bourne-compliant shell like ash. I think that is reasonable. <br>
</div></div>