On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:34:32PM +1000, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> bash is an essential package and therefore must (ยง2.3.7) supply all core
> functionality when unconfigured--which precludes the use of
> update-alternatives (run when configuring the package) if you consider
> /bin/sh as being part o
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 01:49:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:15:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> Yep. This a more serious problem. I don't think its unsolvable, though;
>> how does the current /bin/sh link get set up? I'd think bash postinst
>> could change it
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> What if we change the "Reserved" for 3-5 to "Reserved for use
> at local admin's discretion", and then something like my package can
> just ask[1] if it's ok to use a set in that range; an admin who is using it
> for something else like a large NIS or whatever
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:15:58AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> >
> > Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> > /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> > What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 05:28, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> Technical problems here. Among other things, you'd have symlinks
> /bin/sh -> /etc/alternatives/sh -> /bin/
> What happens if /etc is corrupted or not mounted or there are other
> problems?
Nothing worse than what happens if you put /etc on
5 matches
Mail list logo
