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

Re: Removing bash (Was: /etc/init.d/network is too simple?)

* Steve Lamb said:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:42:57 +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> >ash or some even smaller shell for maintenance? For the moment, no
> >maintenance is possible if bash dynamic dependencies fail somehow. Perhaps I
> >have overlooked something and there is a standard way in the current Debian
> >dists to boot and login as root even if dynamic libraries fail.
>     Not really.  However, it was discussed that people who have such concerns
> should install a second root account with the suggested name of "toor".  toor
> would use sash as the shell instead of bash.  sash, Stand Alone SHell, is
> statically linked and includes many of the common shell utilities.  Remember,
Hmm... isn't it easier to simply make root use some kind of static shell by
default? One shouldn't ever login as root to do everyday's life tasks, so
the shell should guarantee that it'll run all the bourne scripts and, as a
consequence, all the shell scripts should be rewritten to get rid of
anything specific to any variation of shell.

> bash is not the only thing which is dymanically linked that one may need in a
> rescue situation.  *IF* Debian were to install such a standard package, I'd
> say use sash instead of a statically linked bash.
All the binaries that might be necessary in such a situation should always
be linked statically - AFAIR, the old Slackware dists had a set of the
standard binaries linked statically and renamed to binaryname.static. That
would certainly be a way to go - after all, those binaries wouldn't take up
too much disk space...


Attachment: pgpiTvO6fZUYT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: