Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 00:08:22 +0100 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: =?utf-8?q?Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric_Perrin?= <frederic.perrin@resel.fr> Subject: Re: Behaviour of su(1) Message-ID: <200811040008.23196.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <86mygklilz.fsf@chameau.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr> References: <86mygklilz.fsf@chameau.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 31 October 2008 19:33:44 Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric Perrin wrote:
> As a side question, is it considered bad practice to set root's shell
> and locales to something else then the default ?
By some (most?) yes. If you decide to change the default shell, to one that=
's=20
not in the base system (i.e., a ksh/zsh/bash port), then it's highly=20
recommended to make a static version that installs into /bin.
This will save you a number of headaches, when a library dependency is=20
(unsuccessfully or partially) upgraded or /usr is not accessable.
However, when reporting bugs and you only slightly suspect it to be shell=20
related, you should be able to reproduce it on csh for the purpose of=20
reporting and adjust the bugreport if you can not.
=2D-=20
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules
and never get to the software part.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200811040008.23196.fbsd.questions>