On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks > /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/<something> > What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or there are other > problems? Nothing worse than what happens if you put /etc on a filesystem other than / without some pretty evil kluges... (hint: /etc/fstab) > > Also, there is another major problem with using update-alternatives: > we must *always* have a working /bin/sh, so it must be included in an > essential package. But then we can't use alterternatives, which have > to be organised from the maintainer scripts. Yep. This a more serious problem. I don't think its unsolvable, though; how does the current /bin/sh link get set up? I'd think bash postinst could change it to an alternative, but this leaves the problem of if update-alternatives requires a working /bin/sh I really doubt it is a good idea --- would probably be fragile. And its not too hard for the administrator to type ln -s!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part