X-Original-To: alpine-user@lists.alpinelinux.org Received: from smtp6.tech.numericable.fr (smtp6.tech.numericable.fr [82.216.111.42]) by lists.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E024E5C4E88 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:09:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skarnet.org (ip-182.net-82-216-21.versailles2.rev.numericable.fr [82.216.21.182]) by smtp6.tech.numericable.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id C6C19183A15 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:09:08 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 9102 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2018 01:09:35 +0100 Received: from elzian.internal.skarnet.org. (HELO ?192.168.0.2?) () by sinay.internal.skarnet.org. with SMTP; 11 Feb 2018 01:09:35 +0100 From: "Laurent Bercot" To: "alpine-user@lists.alpinelinux.org" Subject: Re: [alpine-user] apk(1) error does not go away Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 00:09:06 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <20180210161622.b7jDK%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <20180210192634.KtRv-%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> <20180210220441.fQ_Xb%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" User-Agent: eM_Client/7.1.31849.0 X-Mailinglist: alpine-user Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtfedrvddvgdduheeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecupfgfoffgtffkveetuefngfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfrhgfgggtgfesthhqredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfnrghurhgvnhhtuceuvghrtghothdfuceoshhkrgdquggvvhgvlhesshhkrghrnhgvthdrohhrgheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd >Oh, I see. So it's just because you don't like it. I thought there was >some system-wide limitation or something on Alpine. It's not because someone doesn't like it. It's because it's an inferior technical choice, teaching you to use non-standard constructs in your scripts (reducing portability), consuming way more resources than is necessary, and proven insecure in the past. We care about quality of implementation, that's why we discourage you from using bash. There's nothing more to it. Using bash makes sense in a few cases, namely when you need the extra functionality that bash offers over a POSIX shell: for instance, arrays. But those cases are pretty rare (and those bash scripts can generally be advantageously replaced with small programs in a real programming language - lua for instance). Most admin tasks can be achieved with a POSIX shell, so it's good practice to code for sh, not for bash or any other specific shell. There's no system-wide limitation on Alpine, but bash is not in base; the default shell is ash, Busybox's /bin/sh, which is compatible with bash in many ways, but not 100%. If you want to run bash scripts, you need to apk add bash, which increases the size of your image. Of course, you're free not to care about any of this. But attention to those details is generally why people choose Alpine over other distributions, so you should expect those arguments to be given on Alpine mailing-lists. -- Laurent --- Unsubscribe: alpine-user+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-user+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---