[arch-general] New install media 2012.08.04 uses ZSH, if I may ask, why?
I trust Arch devs, they always have good reasons behind their decisions. So, I'm just curious for the election of Zsh[1] in the new install media. [1] http://www.archlinux.org/news/install-media-20120804-available/ Regards -- Ricardo (http://r.untroubled.be/)
On 08/05/2012 11:52 AM, Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez wrote:
I trust Arch devs, they always have good reasons behind their decisions. So, I'm just curious for the election of Zsh[1] in the new install media.
[1] http://www.archlinux.org/news/install-media-20120804-available/
Regards
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2012-July/002683.html
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 12:06:58PM -0600, Matthew Monaco wrote:
On 08/05/2012 11:52 AM, Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez wrote:
I trust Arch devs, they always have good reasons behind their decisions. So, I'm just curious for the election of Zsh[1] in the new install media.
[1] http://www.archlinux.org/news/install-media-20120804-available/
Regards
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2012-July/002683.html
Thanks for the link! Best regards -- Ricardo (http://r.untroubled.be/)
I'm more curious as to why zsh is used in the live/install media but not on the base install. I personally like zsh, but it seems better IMHO to use the same interactive shell on both the live media and the base installation as performed by pacstrap /mnt base more because of a perceived need to maintain some uniformity between the install media and the base install rather than any technical reason. ~Kyle
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Kyle <kyle@gmx.ca> wrote:
I'm more curious as to why zsh is used in the live/install media but not on the base install. I personally like zsh, but it seems better IMHO to use the same interactive shell on both the live media and the base installation as performed by
pacstrap /mnt base
more because of a perceived need to maintain some uniformity between the install media and the base install rather than any technical reason. ~Kyle
Pretty good idea, really (then again, I use zsh on every install). bash is in [core] (and depended on by most scripts) which zsh is in [extra] though....
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Kyle <kyle@gmx.ca> wrote:
I'm more curious as to why zsh is used in the live/install media but not on the base install. I personally like zsh, but it seems better IMHO to use the same interactive shell on both the live media and the base installation as performed by
pacstrap /mnt base
more because of a perceived need to maintain some uniformity between the install media and the base install rather than any technical reason. ~Kyle
Pretty good idea, really (then again, I use zsh on every install). bash is in [core] (and depended on by most scripts) which zsh is in [extra] though.... Maybe one day zsh will become the default shell on arch :)
-- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer www.seblu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2012 07:57 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Maybe one day zsh will become the default shell on arch :)
That'd get my vote, but I'd be amazed if any distribution ever did this. Doesn't zsh take more--a lot more--memory? - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQHzg4AAoJELT202JKF+xp5VkP/3tmkrk5HSgQ6QKAVtMOGX+E IW7idNpAiVok+TosFFu2dO4NyyNADtXvjiNlSUFRltQa0ATwOVfYnSJwjkNYOkdC sHe+0a+EXmsDCYbSeSVUSfRLI37Bzp3EX+ZEVHMbDvtM0KRBAhmk9b28BrZ7vJ5U +hLis/kXFOY809V32udoPXYLpF23ajC+jp3Yyeq+MYlocBTD3SDuNS7td5wAOVrg E1xYSQjpPLLSkfP3FuWJ1wEzqc+kqmuoMNm9dP06aKXs1bmfX4c7Wwgk1uFh+WwC MrMZaKRbjPi+CfVi6BcyWufHb0Ork9TDeHY3ZfzUricZlK15nBVHAh63XbeDNI0W n0GaISEJ2lvjI4D3yB0rxKJRdIwlWEpAAA/qIyhjKZKN2jXh/sBLh9WneGNfW9LS YZfma+XfgTZMugFIpDO/PjxcCGuhpx2jSzOdDl4mdMeK83x9iP9hfBP+6m6F+62k 9AWWtviXsQ/W7RgYV+cXiYS0sRIW2+XkfEwI7iQhZTN+Ilyy9RPjuiUk4l9JZZuq +532tZpEFQZd5bB5GiqT5A4uT1TVGmREBkg/hAJRX8Wmq4oqz1J3wUWe/iQH78v1 kusxsskrdJkEeRa3OLtH+DBSLDLNZyAQw/gLeIvWrXPJca+r6sz22ZOhrVLR8SgY hy4m+FGZ5sGZJMLwo/Tq =wASl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6 August 2012 00:21, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
That'd get my vote, but I'd be amazed if any distribution ever did this. Doesn't zsh take more--a lot more--memory?
David, I don't think in modern systems this could be of any real issue, choosing, for instance, sh over zsh because memory consumption is like deactivating unused ttys in /etc/inittab to save memory: nonsense. But in the case you happen to install Arch in a very resource-constrained machine you can always install Bash and then switch to it. I myself am a bash guy; while other fancy shells can add extra features I find bash sports everything I need for my daily console work. I really don't care about zsh shipped as default shell as long as zsh is full bash-compliance - but AFAIK zsh have some minor incompatibilities with bash that may prevent it from being the shell standard because the vast majority of scripts are crafted using Bash, a widespread de-facto standard for so long time. -- -msx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2012 09:13 PM, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
I really don't care about zsh shipped as default shell as long as zsh is full bash-compliance - but AFAIK zsh have some minor incompatibilities with bash that may prevent it from being the shell standard because the vast majority of scripts are crafted using Bash, a widespread de-facto standard for so long time.
Indeed--those incompatibilities are precisely what I like about zsh. ;-) - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQH0U4AAoJELT202JKF+xp3lsP/37P5SMxGOqoxMS7RaA1xWH0 7Li8P3oxX9c8cuJOE6LIghyJAs8IdIuilPANWDVxBXPmPoJ+izBEMb9Hvwqhysj1 CSUgI2NTfE1YJhh3ifPq3Sti1nh9/IiMvOjKgIlMKEQ2LCEKcGPBdKndcgB0lkDn 9pg+oFc5SGy9pW4CFqOh+NwX9EJeoP4jJ+YX2glsHhWS+hkK1cyToOtAPAMRjyJS 5j/CRdsBrlG5kSoWhqF99yr4sQwpDKrCQ3zQTZ3B7fcoy4R8gKB1/ZGUWak15pif owPmXwjyE3Z0eK5lB4L6BK5av/SJU5xfcwGH4p9kjB9gkITGCbKCeCMfaO96grKg CLyBWIupp13ETG9v365cauphYq/r7+EJSSvDwWWW++L5JKerX3k3sPKYyAV+V7DE eHxp/eJjLG5prXm8u7B1AzYgK3s+uG2Juwu2/PCUE/PQ98FS+OTWC3l7R41IBeor /+bDGD/pED1qqFhWoHVyU+8HLAukhV0Nj09jHsU4vYzbJYLkOA7lDrLf0/Ntp8LP /vl+0S9GdyMf1bzfWr19mpiii2BuYGkm2zz8meNtZQ/yQmtB7xoQmwIAQunfxi6a LmSfyMp0Vhb4feDLMxbf45ZVRnEV3Sdc+cSzoZnKT2dyOkLEXe36rlC2me1gwzVo 0U3/eO12ET6ymHkQ4CI3 =JU2Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 6 August 2012 01:16, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
Indeed--those incompatibilities are precisely what I like about zsh. ;-)
You mean the features associated to them, I guess! -- -msx
I really don't care about zsh shipped as default shell as long as zsh is full bash-compliance - but AFAIK zsh have some minor incompatibilities with bash that may prevent it from being the shell standard because the vast majority of scripts are crafted using Bash, a widespread de-facto standard for so long time.
Indeed--those incompatibilities are precisely what I like about zsh. ;-)
I guess you've never had to migrate scripts to bourne shell with only a change in script lines and not function. As for speed there is a big difference between ttys and shell size which is why debian has dash. Whilst I say a big difference in that relation I agree it saves little in most desktop cases and can cause issues having dash. Greater bug awareness in bash or bourne/korn shell is another point. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
On 6 August 2012 08:26, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: OT: Talking with an archer on irc about this thread and differences between bash and zsh yesterday, he told me he uses zsh for a long time now and it has quality improvements over bash like better code organization (he told me zsh is modular), light on resources (I expected zsh to be heavier) and that even zsh is speedier than bash O_o May be I need to give zsh another review? Regards! -- -msx
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/06/2012 09:28 AM, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
On 6 August 2012 08:26, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
OT: Talking with an archer on irc about this thread and differences between bash and zsh yesterday, he told me he uses zsh for a long time now and it has quality improvements over bash like better code organization (he told me zsh is modular), light on resources (I expected zsh to be heavier) and that even zsh is speedier than bash O_o May be I need to give zsh another review?
I was only being a little bit snarky yesterday. But in truth, it isn't just zsh features I prefer. For me, the ways in which zsh is preferably incompatible with bash aren't just in zsh features (which are indeed very cool) but in the ways that it interprets command lines--ways which I think zsh handles more intuitively correctly. 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. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQIFFuAAoJELT202JKF+xp+QIQAJoEOJUXozvyDWmjs/spK6So Q0bmB4v6M8gyfhWzkUnPWRLGXV+/sbrG/kyo2UhRyz4hj7X/AJj0tZSdVZVvo3FN HHw5FG8ChfgSuh4RDq2U2I9duOCIn8nDPFXjbWhgga0fOIPO1eiKoaycZRB53LO3 hy+RYt7hHmpsqlUb4yXe8SLnZQ8Qfhc94xfni8GAmwkcbs6TAOMvEsxtrEq6LYdt i5xAmnlK0aFMALgWlpX3Td17loIKllvZykINBISGQcEuKFNfoGrGXJ4eYrG222yb Qm6zfu020vsWaqKtR0hl2dZ0P9baeD1JOhE4hCbAKkC9xlFsTQt8xAOdgQzlnlMX LRc13/vceaEzLvpGQ8FARVJuLHuRK7JXOg3QW+au8hEnrO+0tnBrDrgoNYYwOGZd pVKQ5E5o0bXlcbgiJRCctA/lIXiDm5QQ/vKNOUyEzL5pMpHf7+cyGfY8ThMUbZHY zSGLTFGOXNk3/k3xUKHP+C4JQ+SarSuBym/2u/JKtjfv/trpi9aTgLw94ENdaLpf WpJ3OJ10BUM3kKZhgnxyP+Yx8t0pkwh79m94pm5dC8PV7oFxd4KMR5sH2gnR6DLm IC0QHZWOPF4NVeb5ljihp5G8W20bYLRB01RLnnHFEKfpuQKUp/mGzXKkeNG1FAye r7YtLK1szT6iDVMLuddk =1QkH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/2012 09:28 AM, Martin Cigorraga wrote:
On 6 August 2012 08:26, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
OT: Talking with an archer on irc about this thread and differences between bash and zsh yesterday, he told me he uses zsh for a long time now and it has quality improvements over bash like better code organization (he told me zsh is modular), light on resources (I expected zsh to be heavier) and that even zsh is speedier than bash O_o May be I need to give zsh another review?
I was only being a little bit snarky yesterday. But in truth, it isn't just zsh features I prefer. For me, the ways in which zsh is preferably incompatible with bash aren't just in zsh features (which are indeed very cool) but in the ways that it interprets command lines--ways which I think zsh handles more intuitively correctly.
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.
In true Arch fashion, some of the community would need to test out exactly what breaks =). Perhaps an AUR package which replaces/provides bash and consists of a symlink to zsh would be a test suitable for that (not that I'm likely to try that out anytime soon...)
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:21 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
I was only being a little bit snarky yesterday. But in truth, it isn't just zsh features I prefer. For me, the ways in which zsh is preferably incompatible with bash aren't just in zsh features (which are indeed very cool) but in the ways that it interprets command lines--ways which I think zsh handles more intuitively correctly.
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.
We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash, 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. Cheers, Tom
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash, 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.
On the contrary, this inspired me to try zsh out. Im loving it so far! :D -- Regards L. Sent using electronic mail ツ
Leon Jacobs <leonja511@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
We need /bin/bash and also /bin/sh to be provided by bash, 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.
On the contrary, this inspired me to try zsh out. Im loving it so far! :D
If you're just getting started out with zsh, you might like Sorin Ionescu's fork of oh-my-zsh[1] Footnotes: [1] https://github.com/sorin-ionescu/prezto -- Jeremiah Dodds github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com> wrote:
If you're just getting started out with zsh, you might like Sorin Ionescu's fork of oh-my-zsh[1]
Footnotes: [1] https://github.com/sorin-ionescu/prezto
/emote doesn't know what to do with all this candy! Thanks! Will definitely check it out. ;) -- Regards L. Sent using electronic mail ツ
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
Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@piing.fr> writes:
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?
Well, all the canon arch scripts use #!/bin/bash, afaik[1] . Other than that, while I use zsh regularly and love it, a move to having it as the default shell would definitely require a lot of testing, if only because bash has become so ubiquitous that I'd worry about breakage due to non-POSIX "bashisms" being possibly relied on by a lot of scripts. Footnotes: [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Bash_Coding_Style -- Jeremiah Dodds github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory
On 7 Aug 2012 08:56, "Jeremiah Dodds" <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, all the canon arch scripts use #!/bin/bash, afaik[1] . Other than that, while I use zsh regularly and love it, a move to having it as the default shell would definitely require a lot of testing, if only because bash has become so ubiquitous that I'd worry about breakage due to non-POSIX "bashisms" being possibly relied on by a lot of scripts.
I first tests I guess would have to be done on the install scripts. Are the install scripts shell agnostic?
Footnotes: [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/DeveloperWiki:Bash_Coding_Style
-- Jeremiah Dodds
github : https://github.com/jdodds freenode : exhortatory
On Aug 7, 2012 9:21 AM, "Nicolas Sebrecht" <nsebrecht@piing.fr> wrote:
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).
If I understand correctly there are known issues with the various shells' emulation of sh. That's why bash will not go away. Just to be clear: We are just using zsh as the interactive shell on the instal media, not installing it by default, nor using it for sh.
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?
Both.
On Monday 06 Aug 2012 04:57:33 Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
Maybe one day zsh will become the default shell on arch :)
What a day that will be!! -- Cheers and Regards Jayesh Badwaik stop html mail | always bottom-post www.asciiribbon.org | www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
After I've read the whole thread, I decided to give zsh a try and so far I liked it. Before that, I had custom scripts that handled ssh-agent, screen and many other things and now projects like OMZ takes care of it. However django seems to have a problem with it. I believe it can't set the paths correctly and therefore settings module cannot be found. So far I only experienced this problem. --- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Alper Kanat <tunix@raptiye.org> wrote:
After I've read the whole thread, I decided to give zsh a try and so far I liked it. Before that, I had custom scripts that handled ssh-agent, screen and many other things and now projects like OMZ takes care of it. However django seems to have a problem with it. I believe it can't set the paths correctly and therefore settings module cannot be found. So far I only experienced this problem.
I got round to giving OMZ a bash ( no pun intended :P ) too. For my day to day terminal work it seems perfect so far... -- Regards L. Sent using electronic mail ツ
participants (15)
-
Alper Kanat
-
David Benfell
-
Jayesh Badwaik
-
Jeremiah Dodds
-
Kevin Chadwick
-
Kyle
-
Leon Jacobs
-
Leonidas Spyropoulos
-
Martin Cigorraga
-
Matthew Monaco
-
Nicolas Sebrecht
-
Oon-Ee Ng
-
Ricardo Catalinas Jiménez
-
Sébastien Luttringer
-
Tom Gundersen