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.