Re: /bin/sh and ash, bash

[Brian Servis]

*- On  2 Jan, Ben Collins wrote about "Re: /bin/sh and ash, bash"
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:34:51PM -0600, matt garman wrote:
>> 
>> I noticed that Debian makes /bin/sh a symlink to /bin/bash by default.
>> I'd rather have /bin/sh link to /bin/ash.  I tried this quite a while
>> ago, and it seems as though some Debian-specific scripts rely on /bin/sh
>> actually being bash.  In other words, last time I linked /bin/sh to
>> /bin/ash, a few things got broken.
>> 
>> I was just curious if anyone knew whether or not it's "safe" to link
>> /bin/sh to /bin/ash?
> 
> That is the goal. If anything breaks when using a posix compliant shell
> for /bin/sh, then a bug should be filed for the package woning them to the
> affect that it needs to have #!/bin/bash for the interpreter.
> 

Except that the bash package now has the /bin/sh symlink in the package
and not as part of the postinst script.  So if you change the link then
the next time you upgrade bash it will reset the /bin/sh link back to
bash.

But there is a solution to in the /usr/{share/}doc/bash/README.Debian
file for bash.

A kind of FAQ for bash on Debian/GNU\ {Linux,Hurd}
--

1. How can I make /bin/sh point to something else?

   Type

dpkg-divert --add /bin/sh

   and then point it to whatever you want. Upgrades to bash  won't upgrade
   the /bin/sh symlink. To put /bin/sh under dpkg control again, type

dpkg-divert --remove /bin/sh

HTH,

Brian Servis
-- 

Mechanical Engineering  |  Never criticize anybody until you  
Purdue University   |  have walked a mile in their shoes,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  because by that time you will be a
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis   |  mile away and have their shoes.

Re: /bin/sh and ash, bash

[Ben Collins]

On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:34:51PM -0600, matt garman wrote:
> 
> I noticed that Debian makes /bin/sh a symlink to /bin/bash by default.
> I'd rather have /bin/sh link to /bin/ash.  I tried this quite a while
> ago, and it seems as though some Debian-specific scripts rely on /bin/sh
> actually being bash.  In other words, last time I linked /bin/sh to
> /bin/ash, a few things got broken.
> 
> I was just curious if anyone knew whether or not it's "safe" to link
> /bin/sh to /bin/ash?

That is the goal. If anything breaks when using a posix compliant shell
for /bin/sh, then a bug should be filed for the package woning them to the
affect that it needs to have #!/bin/bash for the interpreter.

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED] '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

/bin/sh and ash, bash

[matt garman]

I noticed that Debian makes /bin/sh a symlink to /bin/bash by default.
I'd rather have /bin/sh link to /bin/ash.  I tried this quite a while
ago, and it seems as though some Debian-specific scripts rely on /bin/sh
actually being bash.  In other words, last time I linked /bin/sh to
/bin/ash, a few things got broken.

I was just curious if anyone knew whether or not it's "safe" to link
/bin/sh to /bin/ash?

Thanks,
Matt

-- 
Matt Garman, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"And through the window in the wall
 Come streaming in on sunlight wings
 A million bright ambassadors of morning." 
--Pink Floyd, "Echoes"