* 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 mount and umount are a must - the sash -mount command might become outdated.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