Re: Why isn't /bin/sh managed with alternatives?
Shaleh <email@example.com> writes:
S> My assumption is that /bin/sh is VERY important to the system. All
S> server scripts use it. A dangling symlink could be hazardous.
I'd assume that most users don't install Bourne shells besides the
required bash, and of the ones that do few would want to change the
default sh. People who _do_ want to change /bin/sh I'd hope are
generally clueful on the impacts of doing this.
Since occasionally people do want to change /bin/sh, I think it'd be
a good idea to have a supported way of doing this. The alternatives
system is _designed_ to do this sort of thing. It also means that if
you've got /bin/sh symlinked to ash and then remove the ash package,
the symlink doesn't break (the prerm script should call
update-alternatives to make everything happy).
S> Also, some systems initially mount only certain directories. And
S> /etc is sometimes on a different partition entirely. /bin should
S> stand on its own.
Isn't /etc _required_? Don't parts of libc break if things like
/etc/passwd aren't there? Will bash behave "properly" WRT a Debian
system without an /etc/profile? I'd assume that since we need these
parts of the system for reasonable operation, expecting
/etc/alternatives to appear as will makes sense.
/ \ "The cat's been in the box for over
| David Maze | 20 years. Nobody's feeding it. The
| firstname.lastname@example.org | cat is dead."
| http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/ | -- Grant, on Schroedinger's Cat
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org