farhan ahmed wrote: > Question is how can you make shell statically linked? I thought when you > install package it should be linked rather than manual compiling and > installing
I think that is best left as an exercise for the asker. Here's what it boils down to: There is nothing wrong with a properly implemented 'bash' or any other shell for root. Hint: when the system comes up single user mode, it will ASK you what shell to use. The statically compiled part isn't even critical in OpenBSD, unless you are intent on running bash in single-user mode before all partitions are mounted. The problem is when you break things, you break 'em BIG. Original thread is a case in point. You win awards for courage, not wisdom, for still being intent on using bash as the root shell while you are still walking with a limp from your last experience. There's a lot of stuff that can go wrong when changing a user's default shell over the lifecycles of the system (think upgrades!), virtually all operator error, all avoidable, but errors that can happen tend to happen. When you break JoeAverage's account, no big deal, as long as you can get back as root and fix it. When you break root, you have a problem. Yes, the goal is to do everything right, but another goal is to make it more difficult to do things wrong. If you don't know how to do it right, test it right, and recover it right, don't change the root shell. I realize how it is such finger breaking work to type the five keystrokes "b a s h [enter]" at a command prompt after logging in...so horrible, I know, but until you know what you are doing, just manually invoke bash. You will know you know what you are doing when you realize you don't need or want to use bash on OpenBSD. The only good reason I've found to use bash on OpenBSD is to make it feel like some other OS, and that's really not a good thing when you are administering the system (i.e., logging in as root!). ksh rocks on OpenBSD. :) Nick.
