Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Marc Ramirez <marc.ramirez@bluecirclesoft.com> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Necessary code or trash? Message-ID: <20030828180232.F73827@www.bluecirclesoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20030828214523.GF29750@dan.emsphone.com> References: <1671561231.20280829005225@mail.ru> <20030828213345.GD80772@christabel.starbreaker.net> <20030828214523.GF29750@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Aug 28), Marc Wiz said: > > Sticking with /bin/sh is a good idea. > > > > What I have done is build a static version of bash and put it /bin > > > > I changed root's shell to /bin/bash and run just fine. > > > > Has anyone noticed what a pain it is to build bash statically and > > install it in /bin? > > I don't use bash, but the bash2 port Makefile looks like it builds a > static binary by default: > > CONFIGURE_ENV= LDFLAGS=-static You seem to be correct: $ ldd /bin/bash ldd: /bin/bash: not a dynamic executable I took no special pains - just built the port. -- Marc Ramirez Blue Circle Software Corporation 513-688-1070 (main) 513-382-1270 (direct) http://www.bluecirclesoft.com http://www.mrami.com (personal)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030828180232.F73827>