The 07/08/12, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
But that latter is an issue. It may break an (I assume) unknown number of existing scripts if used for sh, so I think the likely conclusion would be that *both* bash (for sh compatibility) and zsh would have to be installed. I'm not opposed to this, but I'll certainly concede that there are valid points to be made in opposition.
zsh emulates sh when invoked with that name (and so goes for ksh).
We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash,
For /bin/bash I understand but for /bin/sh I don't think so. Why /bin/bash is required? Is it because scripts have this shebang or the way they are written?
so the 'bash' package is installed on the install media. We just install zsh in addition and default to that as the interactive shell.
Pierre explicitly said that he wanted to do this release as a test, and if problems crop up in the feedback due to zsh, then we'll revert it in a future release. So, please test and let us know of any problems we might have overlooked.
I use zsh for years as default interactive shell without any issue. -- Nicolas Sebrecht