Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:36:42 +0200 (EET) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: n@nectar.com (Jacques A. Vidrine) Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.org (Maxim Sobolev), obrien@FreeBSD.org (David O'Brien), naddy@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber), steve@FreeBSD.org (Steve Price), freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ksh93 Message-ID: <200102282036.f1SKarb55568@vic.sabbo.net> In-Reply-To: <20010228141838.B33017@hamlet.nectar.com> from "Jacques A. Vidrine" at Feb 28, 2001 02:18:39 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:12:33PM +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > Well, ld.so could still break, and anyway you'd lose the ability to > > > > Probability of ld.so breakage is quite low, much lower than any of the > > base libs, > > I guess I was thinking in terms of inaccessible /usr, which is the > most common thing I've run into. Well, inaccessible /usr excludes possibility to log-in remotely (inetd lives in /usr as well as demons from /usr/libexec). Therefore, in such case static non-standard shell in /bin makes little or no difference as user has to attend console anyway. -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102282036.f1SKarb55568>