* Jonathan P Tomer said: > > 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... > > well, that's the beauty of sash... it's got all the important things within > itself, so you don't need a billion copies of libc.a floating around in the > form of static binaries for the contents of /bin. so i think that sash is Aaa! That;s great! I have never actually used it, so I didn't know it :(((( (lame me :))) > probably the only thing we need there. i don't like it as a login shell for > root though, since it isn't designed to be comfortable, just effective and > static. since i actually do use root on occasion, and see no need to suffer > on those occasions, i create a toor user to be the stand-alone super-user, > with uid 0 as well (this concept is btw an old bsd joke. the default shell > for root is /bin/sh, as it should be, and there's a user toor with uid 0 and > shell of bash, with the name set to "bourne again super user".) Well, I've got such an account as well, but I use statically linked bash in it. It's accompanied by a set of all the necessary tools linked statically. And it works just fine when I need it :))))))) marek
Attachment:
pgpeVuoKzS4VC.pgp
Description: PGP signature