Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 06:11:27PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> OK, is there anyone who disagrees with this:
> 
>    -- sash becomes an "important" package so that it is installed
>       by default. people who know that their systems will never 
>       fail can deselect it, but by default you get it

default or non-default is not the point - the existence of an optional
static bins package is sufficient. those who want it can have it, those
who don't can ignore it.


>    -- we figure out what additional tools are required in order to 
>       get a root shell and repair a system, whatever sash does not
>       already supply, and add that to some /sbin directory.

yep. 'ar' is the most obvious one. fdisk or sfdisk, e2fsck and mke2fs as
well. 'mount' is in sash but it might be worthwhile having a static bin
too.

and maybe a text editor (elvis-tiny, nvi, or vim-tty...and/or ae, joe,
or ee). 'ed' is in sash but it's not exactly pleasant to use.


>    -- root's shell be set to sash by default, if sash is installed

NO!  that would be a big mistake. this shouldn't be done for the same
reason that you shouldn't change root's shell on solaris or sco to bash.
we'd have enough trouble with bashisms in root cron jobs even if we
switched to a posix sh, switching root's shell to sash would likely be a
disaster (i'm disturbed even by the fact that the postinst for sash asks
if it should change root's shell to sash!)

craig

--
craig sanders