Dangers of using a non-base shell
rsmith at xs4all.nl
Tue Oct 30 10:06:27 PDT 2007
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:50:40PM +0000, Stephen Allen wrote:
> It's been drawn to my attention not to use bash from the ports collection,
> because if one of it's dependencies (gettext or libiconv) fails or is
> updated significantly, it could break, and prevent login. The suggested
> solution was to use a base shell (such as sh) and append 'bash -l' to .shrc
> to automatically enter bash.
This is only a problem for root. If you want to use bash as root you
should compile it statically. See below.
> Would it be a better idea to use the pre-compiled binary for bash? And if
> I did so, could I be alerted to updates as easy as using 'pkg_version -v'
> when checking if any ports need updating?
You can define WITH_STATIC_BASH when you're building bash, so the binary
But if you're starting in single user mode, only / will be mounted. So
if you have /usr or /usr/local on a separate partition, you'd be screwed.
That is why root should only use a shell that's in the / partition.
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20071030/f2d8bb42/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions