On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 09:27:55PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > Richard Coleman wrote: > >It seems /bin/sh is the real sticking point. > > There is a problem here: Unix systems have historically used > /bin/sh for two somewhat contradictory purposes: > * the system script interpreter > * as a user shell > > The user shell must be dynamically linked in order > to support centralized administration. I personally > see no way around that. Given that many users do > rely on /bin/sh, it seems that /bin/sh must be > dynamically linked. > > There are good reasons to want the system script > interpreter statically linked. > > Maybe it's time to separate these two functions? > I would be content to have a static /sbin/sh > that is used as the system script interpreter for > rc scripts, etc. And /usr/bin/sh as a user shell? --Stijn -- "I'm not under the alkafluence of inkahol that some thinkle peep I am. It's just the drunker I sit here the longer I get."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:30 UTC