On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks > /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/<something> > What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or there are other > problems?
Nothing worse than what happens if you put /etc on a filesystem other
than / without some pretty evil kluges...
(hint: /etc/fstab)
>
> Also, there is another major problem with using update-alternatives:
> we must *always* have a working /bin/sh, so it must be included in an
> essential package. But then we can't use alterternatives, which have
> to be organised from the maintainer scripts.
Yep. This a more serious problem. I don't think its unsolvable, though;
how does the current /bin/sh link get set up? I'd think bash postinst
could change it to an alternative, but this leaves the problem of if
update-alternatives requires a working /bin/sh
I really doubt it is a good idea --- would probably be fragile. And its
not too hard for the administrator to type ln -s!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
