Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:58:09AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Bastian Blank writes:
>> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:18:49AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> >> Here I think we can go one of two ways:
>> >> 2) "bootstrap" scripts are only executed after the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:58:09AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:18:49AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Here I think we can go one of two ways:
> >> 2) "bootstrap" scripts are only executed after the owners (Pre-)Depends
> >> hav
Adam Borowski writes:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> > We have the same problem with awk since ages. We should fix both
>> > problems together. Therefor I propose the following:
>>
>> - An esse
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > We have the same problem with awk since ages. We should fix both
> > problems together. Therefor I propose the following:
>
> - An essential or pseudo-essential (depe
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:18:49AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Here I think we can go one of two ways:
>> 2) "bootstrap" scripts are only executed after the owners (Pre-)Depends
>> have been unpacked. This would allow base-files to setup the links based
>> on ava
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 02:18:49AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - The rules for essential packages must remain fulfilled on upgrades
> without this script being executed. The bootstrap script is never
> executed if the system was installed from a version predating the
> "bootstrap" script i
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>> We have the same problem with awk since ages. We should fix both
>> problems together. Therefor I propose the following:
>
> - An essential or pseudo-essential (dependency or pre-dependency from an
> essen
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> For now two packages will get such a script:
> - base-files (setup of /usr/bin/awk)
Err. I meant mawk.
Bastian
--
Earth -- mother of the most beautiful women in the universe.
-- Apollo, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" st
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:52:41PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> We have the same problem with awk since ages. We should fix both
> problems together. Therefor I propose the following:
- An essential or pseudo-essential (dependency or pre-dependency from an
essential package) may include a new m
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:31:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes:
> > - An essential or pseudo-essential (dependency or pre-dependency from an
> > essential package) may include a new maintainer script.
> > - This must be a /bin/sh script.
> > - It may be called after
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Carsten Hey writes:
>> > System shells would (de)register themselves by calling add-system-shell
>> > in postinst and remove-system-shell in prerm. 'system-shell' would also
>> > be a virtual packag
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Carsten Hey writes:
> > System shells would (de)register themselves by calling add-system-shell
> > in postinst and remove-system-shell in prerm. 'system-shell' would also
> > be a virtual package provided by bash, dash and s
]] Luca Capello
Hi,
| > * do another mass bug filing on all packages that contain bash
| > scripts that checkbashisms does not think contain any bashisms
|
| ...there is no point using #!/bin/bash when the script is
| POSIX-compliant, since the default #!/bin/sh on Debian (dash) i
Hi Lars!
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:41:14 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ke, 2011-04-06 at 16:37 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
>> cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
>
> OK, so assuming anything is to be done
On ke, 2011-04-06 at 16:37 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> Obviously, doing these changes earlier rather than later in the release
> cycle would be good, if they are to be done at all.
OK, so assuming anything is to be done about this at all, here's what I
suggest:
* add a lintian test that
Carsten Hey writes:
> System shells would (de)register themselves by calling add-system-shell
> in postinst and remove-system-shell in prerm. 'system-shell' would also
> be a virtual package provided by bash, dash and so on. Although I don't
How would that work with (c)debootstrap/multistrap w
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:37:28 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
...
> Obviously, checkbashisms is not infallible, so the numbers may well be
> off. If I remove all the "not bash" scripts from bash2.list, I get a
> much shorter file: http://files.liw.fi/temp/bash2-isbash.list
>
> Summary:
>
> 1775 file
* Luk Claes [2011-04-06 07:20 +0200]:
> On 04/06/2011 01:55 AM, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > Guaranteeing that /bin/sh exists and is functional during debootstrap,
> > even before any maintainer script has been run, could be archived if
> > every system shell would provide /bin/sh pointing to itself. To
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi
>
> bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
> user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
> install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid of bash
> in their envir
On ti, 2011-04-05 at 08:52 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I'm re-running the scripts, which will probably take a few hours, and
> will report results when they're done. If you notice any problems with
> the scripts, please tell me ASAP.
The new scripts look also in maintainer scripts.
New results
On 2011-04-06 11:22:07 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Not everything in /etc/shells is POSIXy enough to be /bin/sh. The
> *csh family aren't Bourne shells, and while zsh is a very nice
> Bourne-ish interactive shell, in its default configuration it isn't
> POSIX-compliant.
When invoked as sh, zsh
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 at 01:55:20 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> It would also need to assure that whilst
> it is running /bin/sh is always functional. Passing a shell to it that
> is not included in /etc/shells could lead to failing of this tool,
> unless --force is used.
Not everything in /etc/shell
On 04/06/2011 01:55 AM, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Luk Claes [2011-04-05 23:11 +0200]:
>> On 04/05/2011 11:05 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Carsten Hey wrote:
* Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Guaranteeing that /bin/sh
* Luk Claes [2011-04-05 23:11 +0200]:
> On 04/05/2011 11:05 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Carsten Hey wrote:
> >> * Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Find a sane solution for managing /bin/sh. Currently diversions
On 04/05/2011 11:05 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Carsten Hey wrote:
>> * Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
>>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>
* Find a sane solution for managing /bin/sh. Currently diversions are
used, which looks like the wrong
Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
>> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>>> * Find a sane solution for managing /bin/sh. Currently diversions are
>>>used, which looks like the wrong tool for this job to me. There are
>>>also some r
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:09:08 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:41:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Luk Claes (04/04/2011):
> > > > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 07:09:08PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:41:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Luk Claes (04/04/2011):
> > > > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: impor
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 09:41:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Luk Claes (04/04/2011):
> > > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important
> > > is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash w
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Luk Claes (04/04/2011):
> > The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important
> > is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when
> > it's used in a package. Which means quite some packages will ne
Luk Claes (04/04/2011):
> The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important
> is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when
> it's used in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to
> be changed.
What is the most obvious reason to degrade bash to P
* Steve Langasek [2011-04-04 19:37 -0700]:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > Before bash or dash could be made non-essential in a clean way, there
> > are IMHO various things not mentioned up to now in this thread to fix:
>
> > * Fix #428189, either by adapting the
On 05/04/11 04:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
> dash doesn't support $LINENO, which is why it's not detected by Autoconf.
> The reason why it doesn't support $LINENO (it's intentional; we had a
> patch to add it that was then removed) is that the configure.ac files of
> many, many packages contain bashism
* Guillem Jover [2011-04-05 06:19 +0200]:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:08:19 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > This appears to open up any accounts that have been deliberately
> > disabled by setting their shell to a nonexistent path. I know that's a
> > dumb way to disable an account, but that doesn'
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> Lars Wirzenius writes:
>
>> * We can perhaps change debhelper to automatically add the
>> dependency, if it is missing. Since most packages use debhelper,
>> this might transition most of the packages automatically.
>
> I've beend thinking abo
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:59:51PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> > What do others think of moving bash to imp
On ma, 2011-04-04 at 20:32 +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I happened to have access to a idle-ish fastish machine with a fresh-ish
> Debian mirror, so I wrote a script to unpack all binaries (for sid/main
> amd64), and then another script to grep for bash scripts (actually a
> pair of scripts). Wit
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:59:51PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
>> > are part of the base system)?
>>
>> I t
Carsten Hey writes:
> Before bash or dash could be made non-essential in a clean way, there
> are IMHO various things not mentioned up to now in this thread to fix:
>
> * Make dash conform to POSIX. dash/sid is not detected as being
>a POSIX shell by autotools, which leads to lines like #!@
Luk Claes writes:
> What about Roger's suggestion to have the root account passwordless and
> locked with sudo access? Are there other drawbacks to that proposal (is
> booting in single user mode covered for instance?)?
Then a fsck failure won't give you a shell because you can't input the
root
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> * We can perhaps change debhelper to automatically add the
> dependency, if it is missing. Since most packages use debhelper,
> this might transition most of the packages automatically.
I've beend thinking about this a while back when I had a packag
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>
>> bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
>> user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
>> install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid
On Monday 04 April 2011 18.04:20 Luk Claes wrote:
> The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important is
> obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when it's used
> in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to be changed.
Do you have any kind of estim
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 06:19:38AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> But then bash only depends on libc and libncurses, which are
> pseudo-essential, so if those and the dynamic linker are
> non-functional then the system has bigger problems than root not
> being able to login. For the unpack case you
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:08:19 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> This appears to open up any accounts that have been deliberately
> disabled by setting their shell to a nonexistent path. I know that's a
> dumb way to disable an account, but that doesn't make this any less of a
> security hole.
>
> Ho
[Roger Leigh]
> Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue with it
> being /bin/sh. The admin is always free to chsh it to the shell
> of their choice.
That brings up something I think all interactive shells should do: in
'prerm remove', check to see if you are root's login shell,
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
>> * Make dash conform to POSIX. dash/sid is not detected as being
>>a POSIX shell by autotools, which leads to lines like #!@POSIX_SHELL@
>>to become #!/bin/bash and thus introduces useless dependenci
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 02:00:36AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Before bash or dash could be made non-essential in a clean way, there
> are IMHO various things not mentioned up to now in this thread to fix:
> * Fix #428189, either by adapting the policy to reality or vice versa
>(depending on
Thanks for looking at this! I'd definitely be happy to see a solution that
lets us shrink our Essential set without making the system less robust.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:49:17AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > If login worked consistently in the face of the configured shell going
> > missing
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:32:50PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue with it
> > being /bin/sh. The admin is always free to chsh it to the shell
> > of their choice.
>
> We could even ha
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 01:49 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
[...]
> Well, we can always fix login to behave more robustly, no? :)
>
> > If login worked consistently in the face of the configured shell going
> > missing (automatically falling back to /bin/sh for root), then I think it
> > would be wort
Before bash or dash could be made non-essential in a clean way, there
are IMHO various things not mentioned up to now in this thread to fix:
* Fix #428189, either by adapting the policy to reality or vice versa
(depending on the maintainers decision) as prerequisite to fix the
next point wi
Package: login
Version: 1:4.1.4.2+svn3283-3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi!
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:16:35 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
> > are part of the
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:00:37PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 04/04/2011 10:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:32:50PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> >> On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >>> Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue wit
On 04/04/2011 10:42 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:32:50PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue with it
>>> being /bin/sh. The admin is always free to chsh it to the
On 04/04/2011 09:32 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> However, there have got to be hundreds of packages using bash
>> without a dependency. Do we have any information on the
>> affected packages (i.e. all those with a #!/bin/bash shebang in any
>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:32:50PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue with it
> > being /bin/sh. The admin is always free to chsh it to the shell
> > of their choice.
> We could even have
On ma, 2011-04-04 at 19:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Regarding the root shell issue, I wouldn't have an issue with it
> being /bin/sh. The admin is always free to chsh it to the shell
> of their choice.
We could even have d-i set the root shell to bash if it installs bash.
Or have bash do it al
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 05:59:51PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
> > are part of the base system)?
>
> I think that this is a great idea.
Likewise.
Regarding the
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
> are part of the base system)?
I think that this is a great idea.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscri
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:04:20PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
> user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
> install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid of bash
> in their environment
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 18:04:20 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Hi
>
> bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
> user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
> install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid of bash
> in their enviro
On Apr 04, Luk Claes wrote:
> The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important is
> obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on bash when it's used
> in a package. Which means quite some packages will need to be changed.
This looks like a good enough reason to me to not
On 2011-04-04, Luk Claes wrote:
> What do others think of moving bash to important (required and important
> are part of the base system)?
Just to make sure, you are essentially (ha!) talking about dropping
Essential:yes from bash?
/Sune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.
Hi
bash is not the default system shell anymore. It's now only the default
user shell. As such it is not required for a sysadmin to boot and
install software. Besides that some users would like to get rid of bash
in their environment which is obviously not easily done atm.
The most obvious reason
65 matches
Mail list logo
