> On 2016-05-11 14:06, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > On 2016-05-11 12:09, Andrew Schulman wrote: > >>> Am 10.05.2016 um 20:19 schrieb Andrew Schulman: > >>>> Achim, can you please add /bin/fish and /usr/bin/fish to /etc/shells in > >>>> base-files? > >>> > AFAICS this should be a two-step process. > > 1) base-files' default /etc/shells should contain only the shells in a > Base install, namely: > > /bin/sh > /bin/ash > /bin/bash > /bin/dash > /usr/bin/sh > /usr/bin/ash > /usr/bin/bash > /usr/bin/dash > /sbin/nologin
Yep. > 2) Then all non-Base shells, namely: > > fish Andrew Schulman > mksh Chris Sutcliffe > posh Jari Aalto > tcsh Corinna Vinschen > zsh Peter A. Castro > > will bump release adding an update_etc_shells call, per the attached > patch, with the path of their shell(s). Agreed. > Attached. Any questions or comments before I make this official? This looks right, except that it edits /etc/shells directly. So if a person edits /etc/shells to remove, say, fish, and fish gets updated, as written this patch will add fish back in. (Why they'd install fish but not want it in /etc/shells I don't know, but it's possible.) Better is to add the new shell to /etc/default/etc/shells, then copy that file over /etc/shells if that file had not been previously edited. > Or, is this just not worth the trouble? What are the consequences of > having shells listed in /etc/shells which aren't on the system? /etc/shells doesn't seem to be very important in Cygwin. And it includes one shell now (pdksh) that doesn't exist in Cygwin, and it's not hurting anything. But it's not a lot of work to do it right, and I think we should. Andrew