Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!newshost.telstra.net!asstdc.scgt.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.eng.convex.com!newsrelay.netins.net!news.dacom.co.kr!usenet.seri.re.kr!news.cais.net!news.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Is replacing /bin/sh with bash recommended? Date: 17 Mar 1996 18:50:46 GMT Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah Lines: 26 Message-ID: <4ihmu6$m45@park.uvsc.edu> References: <4ih5qb$lae@blackice.winternet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com jdb@robigo.winternet.com (John D. Boggs) wrote: > > What sort of nasties (if any) should I expect if I replace /bin/sh > with bash in FreeBSD-2.1.0? Expect the /etc/rc to fail to load because bash is linked against shared libraries and the libraries are on /usr and /usr isn't mounted until /etc/rc has run. So basically, expect the system to fail to boot. Since root's default shell is "sh", making "sh" bash will also cause single-user mode to fail to operate. In general, it's a bad idea. Why not put bash in /etc/shells and call it "bash" instead? Is there any special reason you want to change its name? Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.