Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:58:09AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org 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
Adam Borowski kilob...@angband.pl 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:
-
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:58:09AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org 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
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 in the
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org 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 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 (dependency
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
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?
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org 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
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org 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
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org writes:
System shells would (de)register themselves by calling add-system-shell
in postinst and remove-system-shell in prerm. 'system-shell' would
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 07:31:08PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org 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
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:37:28 +0100, Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi 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
Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org 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
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
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 about
]] 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) is
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/shells
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 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 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
* 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 avoid
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
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi 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
Luk Claes l...@debian.org 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
Carsten Hey cars...@debian.org 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
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
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). With
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 09:36:14AM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de writes:
Lars Wirzenius l...@liw.fi 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
* 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't make
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 bashisms
* 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 policy
Luk Claes l...@debian.org (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
On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 03:14:12PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Luk Claes l...@debian.org (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
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 l...@debian.org (04/04/2011):
The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority: important
is obviously that one needs to declare a dependency on
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 l...@debian.org (04/04/2011):
The most obvious reason to not degrade bash to Priority:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:09:08 +0200, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org 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 l...@debian.org (04/04/2011):
The most obvious reason to not degrade
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 related bugs
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 tool for this
* 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 are
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 exists and is
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
On 2011-04-04, Luk Claes l...@debian.org 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
On Apr 04, Luk Claes l...@debian.org 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
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 environment
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 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
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 root
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
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 d-i
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 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 shell
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 with it
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 base
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
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 worthwhile
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 d-i
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 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 the
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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
[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,
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.
How
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
65 matches
Mail list logo
