[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tech-ctte: More specific advice regarding merged-/usr and implications of #978636

Quoting Josh Triplett (2022-07-26 17:29:43)
> Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > I just remembered a pending MR that I'd say is a little more important than
> > "good to have":
> > 
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debianutils/-/merge_requests/21
> > 
> > Without this one-line change, /etc/shells on merged-/usr systems will have some
> > shells listed twice and some shells (like /usr/bin/bash) missing. The reason
> > is, that dpkg-realpath doesn't support merged-/usr and thus a workaround is
> > needed.
> Over the years, I've seen a few proposals floated to consider dropping
> /etc/shells; this would just require dropping pam_shells.so from
> /etc/pam.d/chsh. That would also have the side effect of solving this
> problem, and making one less thing requiring maintainer scripts.
> Would it be worth reopening that discussion, and evaluating the net
> value of continuing to maintain /etc/shells?

"one less thing requiring maintainer scripts" is not an argument anymore
because update-shells from debianutils is precisely the mechanism that avoids
maintainer scripts for updating /etc/shells. It does so by using a dpkg trigger
on /usr/share/debianutils/shells.d instead. We were able to remove maintainer
scripts updating /etc/shells (partly or completely) from bash as well as dash
thanks to update-shells in debianutils.


cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: