Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:03:34 +0000
From:      RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Tab to Auto-Complete + ....
Message-ID:  <200501191803.35403.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050119152246.GA63214@catflap.slightlystrange.org>
References:  <200501182030.52598.shinjii@virusinfo.rdksupportinc.com> <200501191432.42281.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> <20050119152246.GA63214@catflap.slightlystrange.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 19 January 2005 15:22, Daniel Bye wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 02:32:41PM +0000, RW wrote:

> > It's recommended that you stick to shells  in /bin for root, and tcsh is
> > the best of these. For non-root account you have more choice, bash and
> > ksh are popular.
>
> This is true enough.  If you really want to use a different shell, then
> you could probably write a conditional test to go in the default shell's
> startup files.  For example, to run bash, put a conditional test in
> .cshrc to check that bash can be invoked without errors.  If so, exec()
> it.  If not, then just continue with csh.  Voila.  You have a bash shell,
> without having to change root's default shell.  I am afraid I can't help
> with the syntax, as I don't use csh.

I don't really know whether that's safe. There was a long discussion about 
this recently and it was not about root being left shellless if /usr doesn't 
mount (in single user mode the default is sh anyway). There was a specific 
problem in the ports list that was tracked down to the someone not using a 
shell in /bin (and copying another shell to /bin is just as bad, unless it's 
statically linked).   I didn't follow it in any detail - I decided it was 
just better to stick to tcsh for root.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501191803.35403.list-freebsd-2004>