Thanks for looking at this! I'd definitely be happy to see a solution that lets us shrink our Essential set without making the system less robust. On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:49:17AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > If login worked consistently in the face of the configured shell going > > missing (automatically falling back to /bin/sh for root), then I think it > > would be worthwhile to do the work necessary to remove bash from the > > essential set. But until then, the primary purpose of Essential, to me, is > > the "minimal set guaranteed to be usable" aspect, not the "you don't have to > > depend on it" aspect. > That's more or less what the attached patch does. Yes, it seems to handle the missing-shell case. What about the case of execle() failing? It's at least as likely for a shell to be broken because its dependencies are not yet unpacked as it is that it's broken because the shell itself is not unpacked. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature