On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 02:24:44AM +0900, Bryan Dunsmore wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote in post #1038527:
> > I would like to see it use sh/.profile instead of bash/.bashrc,
> > actually.
> 
> I would implement this, but there is no use if RVM needs bash anyways.

Does RVM itself need Bash, or just the RVM installation process?

I recall (possibly erroneously) the RVM developer saying something about
wanting to make it sh-compatible at some point in the future.  I
certainly hope that will be in the works at some point, anyway.  If RVM
itself requires it, and not just RVM's installation process, and the
maintainer implements sh support so that Bash is not required, it would
be kind of a bummer if your installer was then the limiting factor.


> 
> Peter Vandenabeele wrote in post #1038701:
> >
> > For a single user install and with a "new" script, I prefer not to
> > give sudo rights to the user. So, when a package is missing, I prefer
> > to let me know, and then I will go in manually and install it with
> > sudo from my main account.
> 
> Good point.  I'll probably implement this as a switch instead of making
> it the default, though.

Yeah, that's a good point, and I was thinking of mentioning something
about not requiring sudo.  I think the best option would be to make it a
switch so that, depending on what you choose, sudo may not be a
requirement.