Le 26/06/2020 à 17:13, Eli Schwartz a écrit :
On 6/26/20 3:26 AM, Norbert Lange wrote:
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)?
My "random user" opinion is that busybox currently doesn't have a
nologin applet, because only C applets count (and anything else is
unreliable vendor-specific shellscripts, regardless of whether or not
they happen to reside inside the busybox binary).
Therefore I would be surprised and disappointed if the busybox
maintainer rejected a patch adding one by saying "the shell one is good
enough". As you pointed out, it requires a bunch of features such as a
shell, which may not be desired, and for that reason alone, I would
intuitively expect "here is a nice C version of 'nologin'" to be a
valuable patch.
But why do you need a nologin at all ?
In our systems we are just using /bin/false, that's all we need in an
embedded system.
Christophe
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
