[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#93894: lshell sucks, should be removed

Oohara Yuuma <oohara@libra.interq.or.jp> cum veritate scripsit:

> I found lshell (orphaned, #93894) is just too braindead.

Please file several bug reports (serious/whatever) to lshell
regarding the bugs.

It can stay in unstable if anyone cares,
it will be removed if no one takes up ever.

There are only two bugs filed against lshell, and 
if you think lshell really sucks and has problems, 
please feel free to file the bugs.

Especially, "serious" bugs, if you find that 
the package is violating some policy, and 
"grave" if it breaks other packages.

I have a feeling that this package is being used by so few people that
it is not receiving any bugs.
It might be otherwise, and these bugs may get fixed.

> This means that a user must have /bin/lshells/ or /usr/bin/lshells/ to use
> lshell.  It is ugly.  In fact, the .deb comes with /bin/lshells/ and
> /usr/bin/lshells/!  It also has a postinst script which creates the
> necessary symlinks and asks the user if it may do a massive chsh for all
> non-system users (that is, uid > 99) and then modify /etc/shells (a conffile
> of the package "passwd").
> lshell needs lots of hack (or a complete rewrite) to follow the FHS.
> If a sysadmin wants to set a resource limit now, s/he can use
> the pam_limits PAM module.  Therefore I think lshell should be removed
> from the Debian archive.

However, just using /usr/lib/lshells/bin
might be an option.

Not a complete rewrite is necessary for FHS compliance,
this is my impression after reading your comments, not by 
reading the code.

"chsh" is of course necessary for any non-default shell...
If you think the postinst is broken, file a bugreport as well...

dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Reply to: