On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:34 AM, Peter wrote:

>
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Greywolf wrote:
>
>> [Thus spake Dan LaBell ("DL: ") 2:57pm...]
>>
>> DL: You could maybe make a link to /bin/sh as /sbin/init.bak, and get 
>> a
>> DL: shell.
>>
>> You're not going to get much if init's not running.
Ya, I just noticed that.  I hadn't actually tried typing /bin/sh there, 
so I'm guessing a link wouldn't help.

>> DL: Incidentily, is there no sulogin available? In pkgsrc or 
>> otherwise?
>>
>> Oh, gack.  Please throw that one back.  sulogin is an egregious hack 
>> that
>> should have been wiped off its mother's leg.
>>
*shrug*  And, perhaps not necessary -- on linux, I learned not to trust
fsck -p on ext2.   I'm still wary of fsck -p, in general, and I don't 
really want to drop to rootshell w/ no password just to give root some 
options.

>> DL: Of course, the lack of it, may make going to pam easier, as if 
>> was used
>> DL: sulogin was and it pam'ed, then pam problems would lock one out of
>> DL: single user as well... I think
>> DL: I hit that with linux maybe 6 years after a pam upgrade...
>>
>> That's why init does its own thing in the first place.
>
> Is there perhaps an equivalent to ash or busybox on netbsd, for rescue 
> and repair purposes ? (ash is a minimal featureset sh-compatible shell 
> that is statically linked. It is used with some systems for 
> installation, bootable floppies and such).
>
> Peter
>
I don't see it pkgsrc.  HMM.. There is osh, at a glance looks like an 
old bourne shell, w/o the new posix features.
22536 /usr/pkg/bin/osh
128043 /bin/sh

Glad you asked, I might not not have noticed, I've been complaining how 
bloated
/bin/sh looks these days.

Wonder if replace /bin/sh with this, or do the rc scripts rely on the 
new posixisms?