"Ang utong ko ay sasabog sa sarap!" exclaimed [EMAIL PROTECTED] while reading this message on Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:00 and then responded with:
> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:42:08 -0500 (EST) > From: Darren Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Dangers of using a non-base shell > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Roland Smith wrote: > > But if you're starting in single user mode, only / will be > > mounted. So if you have /usr or /usr/local on a separate > > partition, you'd be screwed. > > That is why root should only use a shell that's in the / partition. And since you control the machine that should be easy to do. Put the programs YOU need in a directory on / - even if those are elsewhere in the standard distribution. Yoy may find that you want something that is not there normally. Probably a rare occurance but you won't break anything - particularly if you 'cp' it and not move 'mv' it. > You'll be prompted for a shell if your default isn't available. > I've used bash for the root shell for years. Doesn't mean that > you will never have a problem but this paticular situation > just means you'll have to hit enter to accept /bin/sh or enter > another shell when booting into single user. > -Darren I've been using ksh [not the pd verison but the REAL Korn Shell] for years - even on all the commercial Unix systems I used to maintain. But on FreeBSD I always copy it to /bin/ksh [dropping the 93 extension in the default install] and being of the belt & suspendors mentality I ALWAYS compile it statically - and just checking /bin I find only pgrep and pkill NOT statically linked. Old habits die hard but I surely won't be bitten by a corrupt library. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
