Just MHO:

	No problems with root's default shell either way (I use a
	statically linked 'tcsh', but as its said - to each their own).

	Would prefer us to leave 'toor' out - the reasoning being the
	entry is non functional by default, so if you have to edit it to
	use it, you can cut & edit root's entry if you want it.

	On the other hand - would like to see the passwd manpage updated
	to mention adding a toor account, and possibly even security
	updated to handle it if present (but definitely as an option,
	and I'd prefer it to default to off).

	Here's hoping for some concensus... :)

		David/absolute

	 -=-  "Just adding to the wrinkles on his deathly frown"  -=-

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> 
> >With this change & restoring toor, sh lovers, csh lovers, and new users
> >all win. Both shells are available, and the default install doesn't
> >generate security warnings.
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Please just commit this.   ``Least surprise''.
> 
> It puts things back mostly as they were, as they should be on a BSD box.
> It fixes the complaints about toor and security reporting.
> Those who want to use sh can go back to using toor, or doing whatever
> local tailoring they deem appropriate.
> 
> Which may include adding hooks to sysinst.
> 
> Is it worth kludging passwd/vipw, to force it to update toor's passwd
> to be updated (if toor is present and superuser) whenever root's is
> changed?
>