Re: ash vs. bash
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:02:13PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 05:51:35PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > b. Make ash the /bin/sh default shell.
> > >
> > > Easy. Manage /bin/sh by update-alternatives.
>
> No. update-alternatives is too fragile for this role. (If /bin/sh
> breaks, the system is pretty dead.)
What makes two links more fragile than one link? update-alternatives works
pretty well, and it is non-obstrusive: If you change the link, it will
notice and take a step back.
Anyway, even if update-alternatives has still bugs (which could be fixed),
fixing this will reuqire just a boot disk, one mount command and one
symbolic link, or one option to LILO. Still, I have yet to see serious
problems with update-alternatives, that would be relevant in this
discussion. Anyway, I would volunteer to take a look at update-alternatives
and the reported bugs as well.
The system is far from dead. It won't come up nicely, but is easy to fix.
I can't see how you can trust ldconfig if you are suspicious about
update-alternatives.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: