Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 03:45 Uhr schrieb Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org>: > > On 6/25/20 6:33 PM, Norbert Lange wrote: > > Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 00:25 Uhr schrieb Eli Schwartz > > <eschwa...@archlinux.org>: > >> > >> On 6/25/20 6:13 PM, Norbert Lange wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Seeing that this is pretty much the only embedded-script applet > >>> (pulling in that feature and requiring a few other applets), with the > >>> recent commits getting it to work in single-app mode, I am curious to > >>> why? > >>> > >>> Seems to go against busybox usual minimalism. > >> > >> It's a demo, intended to demonstrate how the system works rather than be > >> genuinely useful. > > > > /sbin/nologin is usually the default shell for system-users, so I > > would not call that useless. > > The nologin command can be useful and I haven't denied this, but the > busybox implementation wasn't intended to be a polished version, i.e. it > wasn't intended to be genuinely useful. It existed since 2011 as > basically documentation ("here are several shell script implementations > of various programs, which you may feel free to personally copy to $PATH > and run using the busybox shell"), then at the end of 2018 busybox grew > an "embedded scripts" feature and it was moved there. > https://git.busybox.net/busybox/commit/?id=4f2ef4a836be37b25808c94f41c7c85895db6f93 > > """ > When scripts are embedded in the binary, scripts can be run as > 'busybox SCRIPT [ARGS]' or by usual (sym)link mechanism. > > embed/nologin is provided as an example. > """ > > It is, in short, an example. A demo. > > >> Just don't enabe it, I guess. ;) > > > > Maybe I would like to have it, but don't have a need for the busybox shell. > > If you do not have any other nologin shell, and you would like to use > one powered in some manner by busybox, then you could probably use the > "false" applet, with the caveat that it doesn't print a cute message > "This account is currently not available."
Sure, having a dropin-replacement for coreutils is nice still. (symlinking to /bin/false wont work, if that's itself a symlink to busybox) > > The /bin/false busybox applet would retain the functionality of > immediately exiting without doing anything, and yielding a non-zero > error status. > > The other option would be, I guess, to implement one properly in C, and > submit a patch for inclusion. > > However, there's little use protesting that busybox never had a nologin > applet, but currently includes one written as a shell script purely for > the sake of documenting the embedded scripts feature. As far as you're > concerned, busybox effectively does not have any sort of nologin applet, > and therefore there is no difference between nologin, which busybox does > not implement, and any other command, which busybox does not implement. I am not "protesting", but worst case would be I spend some time implementing said applet but for some reason it is not welcome to replace the "demo" applet. It possibly a roadblock of someone providing a C replacement. > Feel free to persuasively argue in favor of busybox being a better piece > of software if it includes a convenient nologin applet. Yeah, that's my opinion. > I'm afraid I > personally am not convinced by any argument claiming it already does > have one. I don't get that, you are not convinced because the "demo" is already sufficient, or you are not convinced for arguments *preventing* a C nologin applet (because it already has a shell one)? Norbert _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox