* Steve Lamb said: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > 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... regards, marek
Attachment:
pgptvN3AG0H85.pgp
Description: PGP signature