[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What 'sh' should 'system' use?
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: What 'sh' should 'system' use? |
Date: |
Sat, 01 Oct 2022 18:54:27 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Philip McGrath <philip@philipmcgrath.com> skribis:
> 1) If we want to continue to hard-code a specific shell into Glibc, I think
> we
> should document the decision (for example, why 'bash-static' vs. 'bash-
> minimal'?) […]
The choice of ‘bash-static’ rather than ‘bash-minimal’ is motivated by
the fact that, in (gnu packages commencement), we want to make sure
‘glibc-final’ does not retain references to its build-time environment.
See #:allowed-references in ‘glibc-final’.
> 2) If we want to make 'sh' a weak/dynamic reference, I think we should
> strongly consider arranging to make it available at '/bin/sh' when present. I
> expect this option would require less patching of other packages *by far*
> than
> any other approach.
This is not a viable option because build containers lack /bin/sh.
Overall, I think the current situation is a reasonable tradeoff. It
forces us to do some patching, indeed, but I think that’s acceptable:
we’re talking about a handful of packages.
WDYT?
Ludo’.
- Re: What 'sh' should 'system' use?,
Ludovic Courtès <=