* Craig Sanders said:
> > -- 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.
I agree on that one. They should be recommended, though.
> > -- 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.
mount and umount are a must - the sash -mount command might become outdated.
Maybe also cpio? (tar is in sash)
> 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.
It isn't :))), true. I think ae is the best bet - it seems to be smallest of
them all and reasonably user-friendly.
>
> > -- 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!)
No, Craig, it won't influence any scripts at all. /bin/sh won't point to
/bin/sash, sash will be used only for root, all the scripts will invoke
/bin/{ba|a,c}sh - whatever /bin/sh points to. I think sash should be root
shell.
marek
Attachment:
pgpLqx1_9hHhD.pgp
Description: PGP signature