Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 09:32:28AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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.
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 06:11:27PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> > -- 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.
ar I can see adding.
fdisk and e2fsck are outside the scope of what sash is supposed to
deal with. And you really wouldn't want to have to trust a sash
reimplementation of e2fsck.
> 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.
sash is not supposed to be 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!)
For the record, I'm disturbed by this as well, but I'm still (after a year)
not sure what I'm going to do about it.
This discussion has prompted me to think about this problem differently,
however.
--
Raul
Reply to: