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

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



* Michael Stone said:

> > Well, true, init is also linked dynamically and if it doesn't work, then I'm
> > cooked anyway. But the problem I had was that init worked, dynamic library
> > loading also worked, but bash - the default shell of everyone on the machine
> > including root - didn't work! 
> 
> How'd that happen? 
It was when potato went to glibc2.1. The version of bash installed wasn't
compatible with the new libc and had to be replaced. But dselect failed to
do so due to some unresolved dependencies. It happened so that I had a
partial upgrade - bash and several minor packages haven't been upgraded. At
that time I didn't know that "old" bash won't run with the new libc and
rebooted the system. Well, it turned out that I should've checked things
more carefully. The result was as I described above... That's all :)
 
> > If I had sash as a single mode shell BY
> > DEFAULT then I would simply boot into single mode, and did all the fixing
> > needed to boot normally. 
> 
> Or you could boot with init=sash with no changes necessary for single
> user mode. (I still think making sash the default shell under any
>circumstances is bad because its behavior isn't identical to that of
I would IF I had sash installed. Many people (including myself at that time)
don't know about it ;(((

> bash, which could confuse people.) I guess the bigger question is
Well, IMO, compatibility with bash in single mode isn't that vital - what
counts is that it WORKS. As it was discussed before, I think that the system scripts
should be made 100% compatible with the standard sh, btw..

> whether sash should have a higher priority. I wouldn't necessarily be
> averse to making it standard priority, but I'm not sure it would be
> useful except to people who have read all the docs about it--and those
> people could install it even if it weren't standard. (In your particular
> case, would you have used sash if it had been installed?)
Yes, I would. It would give me enough freedom to do what I planned to do in
the single mode. And, I think it should be made standard priority - with
minor modifications: it shouldn't offer to replace the standard root shell,
instead it should offer to be used as a standard SINGLE mode shell - with
appropriate explanation to the user.

marek



Attachment: pgp5i6vlbtMs2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: