[.all the comments.]
All replies are between "who cares?", "it is holy war/waste of time" to something like "be standards compliant is important" .. this thread is hilarious 😀
I'm observing all the comments under my post and (with full respect to all of you guys) looks like all of you guys are wrong why sticking to POSIX sh is important 😎
Literally all of you lost one very important fact that bash is not fastest sh interpreter which is possible to use and only kind of coincidence is that all those fastest are almost puritanically POSIX sh compliant!!! 😀
For future threads, could you actually put this information in your first post? You did not put in enough info and so everyone is going to bring up a dozen different reasons for what you are aiming at. I am saying this because this information would have made it clearer where you wanted it and why you wanted it... which I think are:
1. Performance. Groups which do regular mass rebuilds of software find the CPU usage of bash during builds to be making things slower. While 5% over one build is not a lot, over 10,000 builds or similar it does. [You are the 3rd person or group I have run into the last month which are doing regular mass rebuilds of parts of Fedora for their customers or own needs.]
2. Security. Why is bash using an old copy of readline and how does it keep up with CVE's that affect it
3. Spec file conformity. If bash needs to use its readline, then it should 1) list it as bundled and 2) please have some note for the various groups who have to do these rebuilds and audits to know why.
Does that cover the points you would like to be covered?
[Also when giving one graph for one type of build, could you also give a similar graph showing how it looks with dash or ksh or whatever you used?]