Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 04:32:55 -0500 From: Jim Bryant <kc5vdj@yahoo.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: Jason Vervlied <jvervlied@hway.net>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bash in /usr/local/bin? Message-ID: <3B764D47.6060902@yahoo.com> References: <3B74D180.D036D629@hway.net> <3B75D33D.68368F22@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B764D47.6060902>