Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:06:13 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: Stephen Allen <p0036343@brookes.ac.uk> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell Message-ID: <20071030170613.GC54116@slackbox.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <472647A0.3030009@brookes.ac.uk> References: <472647A0.3030009@brookes.ac.uk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +0000, Stephen Allen wrote: > It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports collection, > because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) fails or is > updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. The suggested > solution was to use a base shell (such as sh) and append 'bash -l' to .shrc > to automatically enter bash. This is only a problem for root. If you want to use bash as root you should compile it statically. See below. > Would it be a better idea to use the pre-compiled binary for bash? And if > I did so, could I be alerted to updates as easy as using 'pkg_version -v' > when checking if any ports need updating? You can define WITH_STATIC_BASH when you're building bash, so the binary is self-contained. But if you're starting in single user mode, only / will be mounted. So if you have /usr or /usr/local on a separate partition, you'd be screwed. That is why root should only use a shell that's in the / partition. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHJ2SFEnfvsMMhpyURAmy9AJ9V+Trh9WndL02Ldb1Uc5t3O2X2yQCfdS1p wB9RNBeldVkhNnkrFut5ptA= =rLm0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071030170613.GC54116>