Subject: Re: Changing root's shell to /bin/sh
To: None <>
From: Bill Studenmund <skippy@macro.Stanford.EDU>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/18/1999 13:38:37
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Ken Nakata wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 17:44:02 -0800 (PST), Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > 
> > I'd vote we make the tcsh and bash packages install into root, rather than
> > pull them into the distribution. That way they're package-ized (you don't
> > want it, you don't get it, you pkg_delete, it's gone) and in /bin. They'd
> > be compiled static of course. :-)
> Hmm, is it such a good idea?  I personally hate pkg's getting
> installed even in /usr/X11R6...
> If rationale behind it is "it's okay since we can track them down by
> /var/db/pkg/*", why should we be installing pkg's into /usr/pkg in the
> first place?  They could be installed *anywhere at all*.

As outlined in a seperate message, I kinda think shells are special. I'd
like, as root, to be able to drop into a confortable shell. To do that,
the shell really needs to be in /bin (well, in /) and it needs to be
staticly linked.

My suggestion was to maybe generate companion packages. So in addition to
say the tcsh package, we have a tcsh-static package. This package has a
different name, and conflicts with the tcsh package (likewise the tcsh
package conflicts with tcsh-static). tcsh-static would then set a few make
variables (different name, set static link options...) and then .include
../tcsh/Makefile. files, patches, and pkg could just be symlinks into the
tcsh package.


Take care,