Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
Thursday, August 19, 1999, 12:48:20 AM, Justin wrote:
> You need to read the debian policy document, in particular the definition
> of "important". Marking something "important" doesn't force it on anyone,
> it just means that if they do no extra work, they get it by default.
Gee, replace "important" with "required" and you get the same results. I
should know, I have removed several "required" packages which aren't needed on
my system.
> You're being ignorant now. Are you arguing that Debian should not have
> an "important" designation, and that all the programs currently marked
> that way should be moved to something else?
Considering there really isn't much functional difference between
important and required, may be. This, too, has been discussed several times
on this mailing list.
>> ...no command history. Those are the basic staples of an interactive
>> shell. I think quite a few people would be pissed if you removed those from
>> the root shell as that is what is generally ACCEPTED as STANDARD in an
>> interactive shell.
> However command history is not the definition of an interactive shell. I'm
> sorry if you used the wrong word.
I didn't. You were just being intentionally obtuse.
> It would be extremely difficult for the local administrator to construct
> syntax to do this. You're being obstinate now. Nobody has ever done this,
> and nobody ever will, it's a non issue, so you should shut up about it.
*snort* No one ever has. Prove it.
> Huh? Why can't it be the same as roots password? I don't understand. And
> you would never make it a default well known password unless you were just
> really stupid--the only sensible default password, in the absence of the
> user specifying one (which in fact they do, during the install) is to
> use "*" as the default password.
Uhm, what is root's password, by default, on a newly made Debian system?
Are you now going to assume that the person is going to switch passwords
before installing packages? *cough*
Face it, sash can be set to a well known default password because root
WHEN INSTALLED IS SET TO A WELL KNOWN DEFAULT PASSWORD. SO, SMARTY-PANTS, IF
YOU JUST USE ROOT'S PASSWORD, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? ***A WELL KNOWN DEFAULT
PASSWORD!!!*** Geez. Do I have to spell it all out for you or are you going
to eventually engage the supposed brain of yours and think for more than
"Mmmm, must get more beer. *BRAP*"
>If you are spending all day long running commands as root, spend the
>extra 1 second to type "bash" and stop complaining.
OK, so, let me get this straight. Now you want a statically linked ash to
be in memory while you do all your work in bash? You don't see a problem with
that? You love wasting other people's memory, don't you? Care to toss
another 512Mb my way, since you obviously have more than you know what to do
with.
> You can always type "bash" or have a .profile that runs bash, so I
> really just don't see your point at all. If dynamic linking is working,
> you can get bash going; if it isn't working, you're glad you didn't have
> something dynamic as your shell!
Memory... Thanks for the memory!!!
> You just aren't making any sense.
That is why you have a second login with sash. Doesn't use up precious
system resources. You're the one not making sense.
>> No, it has been that in the majority of the cases it is not needed, that
>> it is the domain of the local administrator to take such precautions, that
>> forcing these changes into Debian proper, you are forcing problems onto every
>> Debian install to satisfy a *perceived* problem which has multiple answers and
>> trade-offs that ONLY the individual administrators should make decisions on!
> Once again you are just saying all this, re-read what you just wrote and
> note that it is all just opinion.
Is it now? Your solution forces an increased memory load, possible
security holes, added complexity to *every* Debian system just for the benefit
of solving your PERCEIVED problems when there are other, better solutions
which, along with this one, be made by the local system administrator. I
don't see opinion in there.
> Nobody will be forced to install it. Just when people get lazy and say,
> "go ahead and install the usual stuff", they will get it.
The people who get lazy. Gee, wonder who that could be but damn near
everyone? Yup, you sure thought that through, didn'tcha. Oh, and let's not
forget that since it is marked important, IIRC, each time you go to upgrade
and it has a new version, it will be installed by default unless you shut it
off. Repeatedly. Endlessly.
> That's a very controversial thing to say--in what way would it be
> "detrimental" to the majority? Go back and read all the posts where I
> argued against the notion that it costs anything other than disk space
> before you answer.
I did, it's all bullshit.
> The vast majority of Debian users can afford the disk space; the very tiny
> small number who can't can choose not to install it.
Who are you to make that decision? Where are your figures to back up that
the vast majority of Debian users can afford the disk space? What critiera
have you set? Have you cleared this with each administrator of each Debian
install?
> I prefer ash as /bin/sh as well, a statically linked one. I only argued for
> sash because it seemed more popular here, and I figured it was a reasonable
> compromise. If you are happier with a static ash as /bin/sh, then let's
> agree on that.
No. A DYNAMIC ash. I've shot down every one of your arguements. Now go
away, troll.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: