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

Re: Bugs in bash (was: Release-critical Bugreport)

On debian-devel, Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org> wrote:
> On 29-May-99, 02:43 (CDT), Edward Betts <edward@debian.org> wrote: 
> > So should these be removed from debian/rules and add these two lines to the
> > postinst:
> > 
> > [ ! -x /bin/sh ] && ln -sf bash /bin/sh
> > [ ! -e /usr/man/man1/sh.1.gz ] && ln -sf bash.1.gz /usr/man/man1/sh.1.gz
> > 
> I'd worry about this, in my ignorance. What would the affect of this be
> on the base install? AFAIK, the post installs don't run...and in any
> case, there would be a period of time when /bin/sh didn't exist on the
> target partition(s). Now, since the target isn't being used until after
> the system reboots, that might be ok, but it needs to be thought about
> and tested in that environment, not just in an upgrade.

The other question does Debian support or advocate the changing of the /bin/sh
link? There are still lots of scripts that need bash but say they need sh
could break some things.

I consume, therefore I am

Attachment: pgpiNyKgLH8g8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: