Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 15:27:09 +0000 From: Joseph Mallett <jmallett@NewGold.NET> To: Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Jason Vervlied <jvervlied@hway.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bash in /usr/local/bin? Message-ID: <20010812152709.A73284@NewGold.NET> In-Reply-To: <3B764D47.6060902@yahoo.com> References: <3B74D180.D036D629@hway.net> <3B75D33D.68368F22@softweyr.com> <3B764D47.6060902@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If these admins can't figure out cp `which bash` /bin and then how to add it to etc/shells and chsh root, then I really question if they should be the kind of people that dictate the future of FreeBSD. 0n Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 04:32:55AM -0500, Jim Bryant wrote: > IMHO, all widely accepted shells should be put in /bin > > If not /bin, then somewhere on the ROOT partition. Maybe a new > root-partition bin directory.. I submit /lbin for the sake of discussion. > /bin for basic user binaries, /sbin for system daemons and system binaries, > /lbin for "local" binaries. > > -static should be a prerequisite. > > Sun has recently adopted this strategy and put all third party shells in > /bin [symlink->/usr/bin], and it makes perfect sense, now if they can get > rid of the old SysV crap of /sbin/sh being REQUIRED to be root's shell under > Solaris... > > FreeBSD should go in this direction as well. This allows administrators to > be able to get the shell of their choice WITHOUT having to mount additional > partitions in a single-user-mode scenario, which in a lot of cases is being > used to fix some kind of inconsistancy with the system, all the more reason > to do so in -current. > > An administrator should have easy access to the basic tools he needs to get > the system running, and all on the root partition. If some admins prefer > csh, some tcsh, some ksh, some bash, there are even maschists that prefer > just plain sh, then let them have it by default... Shells are basic tools, > and any given admin will be more proficient in one than the other. I like > tcsh, Jason likes bash, my buddy at work knows ksh... > > I personally abhor bash, but Jason has a good point. > > Jus' my two cents... > > Wes Peters wrote: > > >Jason Vervlied wrote: > > > >>Is there a reason why the bash shell is kept in /usr/local/bin. > >> > > > >Because bash is not 'part of FreeBSD', it is an add-on. > > > > > >>I would > >>personally prefer to use it for my root shell, but if I remember right, > >>root needs to have something that is in /bin (I could be wrong). If I do > >>need a shell located in /bin for root would it break anything if I moved > >>bash from /usr/local/bin to /bin (yes I know I woudl have to update > >>/etc/shells)? > >> > > > >Yes, unless you compile bash as a static executable. I just add a > >rootb account that has bash as its shell and use that for day-to-day > >work, keeping the root account as shipped by the vendor on every > >system. This has the advantage of giving me a root account with a > >consistent shell on any system type, without screwing up the vendor > >root account. > > jim > -- > ET has one helluva sense of humor! > He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos! > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message -- -- Joseph A. Mallett http://srcsys.org xMach Core Team, www.xMach.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010812152709.A73284>