bash - superuser
keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Fri Dec 24 09:39:40 PST 2004
On 2004-12-24 15:38, "Colin J. Raven" <colin at kenmore.kozy-kabin.nl> wrote:
> On Dec 24, Josh Paetzel launched this into the bitstream:
> >I've always been curious as to why you can't(shouldn't?) just change
> >the shell that root uses.
> Josh that's been the backbone of this particular thread over the last
> few days. I'd check the archives and follow the entire thread all the
> way through, in order to view the (rather eloquent) arguments for and
> against that have been posted.
> FWIW (and that's maybe not much) at installation time I use the default
> shell when su'd, but when I get a new box up and reasonably configured I
> switch root shell to bash.
> Notwithstanding all the reasons raised wherein it's thought that "you
> shouldn't" I've honestly never run into a problem with it - thus far
> anyway. If eventually I do, well there y'go I guess, I'll rethink the
> matter through if (or when) the bad things happen.
There is a case that even a statically linked bash may fail, leaving you
with a system that can only boot in single user mode:
- When the system ABI changes in a way that ports *are* broken, even if
The system ABI (application binary interface) may change in an
incompatible way only if you're running CURRENT and the internals of
some library change drastically.
This should *never* affect the binaries built as part of the recommended
buildworld/buildkernel cycle, which means that /bin/csh and /bin/sh
should still work. Applications compiled from the Ports _may_ break
though. Even if statically linked.
Having said that, I have been using `exec bash -l' as the first command
after I su to root for a long time now, and it only broke once (when the
stdin/stdout/stderr changes where made to libc).
More information about the freebsd-questions