Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:02:43 -0700 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>, Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@freebsd.org>, ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: shells/bash port, add a knob which symlinks to /bin/bash ? Message-ID: <5414B0F3.50109@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <541367D1.8090002@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAG=rPVf5z4c6aheCngKy1g-iH8HexAWGQfHoSbtU9D1UC0Pbpg@mail.gmail.com> <541367D1.8090002@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As a slight distraction from the topic, is this actually possible in general? I'm thinking in particular of ports that install kernel modules. Since LOCALBASE may be (and very often is) a different file system from /, such modules cannot be accessible to loader and so can't be loaded in early boot. This is potentially a problem for wireless driver firmware modules, for example. -Nathan On 09/12/14 14:38, Bryan Drewery wrote: > "No" (as portmgr). > > Ports should not be touching the base system like this. Let's NOT go > backwards and add a /bin/bash. In fact the /usr/bin/perl one will be > removed soon as well. > > If we can actually eliminate ports touching /usr and / (not including > /usr/local and /var) then we gain a very large memory optimization for > package building by being able to ro null-mount these to the build jails. > > There's no reason for bash (and perl) to be exceptions to the 24000 > other ports that install to /usr/local/bin. I can think of dozens of > other ports that will fall into the same arguments being made here, but > it does not mean it is the right thing for FreeBSD. > > If you want to install the symlink on your system feel free to do it. I > install a static bash to /bin/bash on mine and only because I prefer > bash shell and want it in / for single-user mode. That's my personal > choice though. > > The proper fix is to fix scripts to be portable and use #! /usr/bin/env > bash rather than /bin/bash. > > We install all packages to PREFIX=/usr/local by default. Why should a > bin symlink be an exception? There's no suggestion for symlinking > includes or libraries which also hit users often. > > On 9/12/2014 4:12 PM, Craig Rodrigues wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In the last 3 jobs that I have worked at, there have been >> a mix of Linux machines and FreeBSD machines. >> When using an NIS or LDAP environment where >> there is a single login across multiple machines, it is useful to >> have a single shell setting. >> >> Since Linux and MacOS X have "/bin/bash" as the shell, >> in order to get the FreeBSD boxes to play in this environment, >> I have seen admins do the following on FreeBSD setups: >> ln -s /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash >> >> or >> >> ln /usr/local/bin/bash /bin/bash >> >> and then make sure that /etc/shells as: >> /usr/local/bin/bash >> /bin/bash >> >> Can we add an optional knob (turned off by default) which creates this >> symlink >> and updates /etc/shells? >> >> This would help with interoperability of FreeBSD hosts in environments mixed >> with Linux and MacOS X. >> >> -- >> Craig >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5414B0F3.50109>