>Solaris used to have two separate instances of executable binaries (e.g. >ifconfig, sh etc). One instance in /usr/sbin and another separate >instance in /sbin
Correct. >The /sbin executables were statically linked and were not dependent on >libraries found in /usr/lib or /lib Not completely true; in S9 14 were statically linked, 16 dynamically. In reality this was the set of programs needed to mount /usr. The dynamically linked programs (such as ifconfig) used the dynamic linked in /etc/lib and had their library path pointed there also. >One possible scenario the above avoided was an accidental corruption of >dependent dynamic linked libraries. If any of the libraries were >corrupted or accidentally deleted, the system would still boot using the >static linked Bourne shell and /sbin executables. > >At least the above was the original rationale. The main reason was likely that /usr contained the libraries and it was not initially mounted. >Thus the previous rationale for a root shell to stay as the Borne shell >was simple. Less dependencies, less could go wrong (during boot up). Correct. >Now it seems the critical binaries in /sbin are also dynamically linked. Correct. >Perhaps Casper Dik could state the rationale behind this change of >policy. I am very curious indeed. What change of policy? The reason we did away with static linking was because of the large amount of issues we had from having a thread library separate from libc; the merger of the two made a static library not only impractical but even impossible. To continue to be able to mount "/usr", much of /usr/lib was moved to /lib as a consequence. >Curiously, the change in policy gives yet another reason why /usr should >not be a separate file system. (Another hot and religious topic. I am a >very strong advocate of /usr being inside root) +1 >Another reason not to use BASH as the root shell would be that there is >no RBAC profile BASH shell. There are profile shells for sh (actually a >simple soft link), ksh and csh but none for BASH. QUite, though for root this matter less. The pf* shells are an implementation artefact which I am planning on fixing so you can have pfanysh (including bash) >BASH also occupies more memory. But to each his or her own. I have >nothing against people using BASH. I just don't recommend it as a root >shell. > >Please don't BASH me ok? Otherwise BASH advocates would gain a rather >violent reputation...... I would say that from an technical point of few there is no longer a reason not to change root's shell as all shells are dynamically linked. I'd suggest merging /usr with /, just in case, but bash does not depend on anything from /usr either, it seems. I've changed root's shell on a number of systems, therefor it cannot be wrong :-) 'nuf said. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
