Pure LFS coreutils - I rest my case (temporarily :)
ej.lfs at xs4all.nl
Fri Apr 25 09:12:02 PDT 2003
Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> I see you are bored? I already have enough fun without using an unknown
> to test an unkown. By testing two unknowns simultaneously, we can have
> more fun if the test fails.
Never a dull moment in my life :))
But at least we know how it should work, while using su from the hosts
can add all sorts of weirdness.
> > If you pass -s /bin/sh to shadow-su, it uses /bin/sh as an interactive
> > login-shell. Not really what we want...
> Yep. Pass /bin/bash.
I meant, it starts an interactive shell, with a prompt waiting for the
user, instead of a shell that just does the commands after -c.
> With software and packages changing so rapidly, I've given up on that. I
> settle for "it works" and/or "when it breaks I know enough to research
That's why I like easy-to-read scripts, so if it fails you can see with
a single look what it does and how it should work. It's much clearer (to
me, at least) to see it in the script that it wants to find a valid
shell than trying to remember that (a version of) su does this check
> > <snip>
> > > wonder if the coreutils install will wipe out the su from shadow, and if
> > > so, will I be screwed?
> > Nothing will be wiped: ch5 installs it in /stage1, ch6 installs it in
> > /usr/bin (which we move to /bin) but it is the first su in the chrooted
> > environment that gets installed. When we install shadow, the
> > coreutils-su will be replaced by the one shadow provides. (Which is a
> > good thing, I guess, because shadow-su for sure knows about shadowed
> > passwords and I don't know if the coreutils-su does)
> Even worse, when a new coreutils comes out and fixes many new things and
> we rush to upgrade our LFS host and we forget that it installs su and we
> run the standard install steps and it installs coreutils over our shadow
> su... ARRRGH!
Yep, but at least you will have the satisfaction that you did it all by
yourself: coreutils installs in /usr/bin at first, so shadow-su in /bin
is relatively safe. Except of course if you update a single package with
your standard script.
> It's a conspiracy I tell you. A vast scheme to increase the number of
> technical folks required to keep these "efficiency" tools working. The
> scheme is not working well at the moment. And neither is the software.
> I'm hoping that the folks who researched and produced the mini-perl
> install will take this up since they already have the groundwork
> research done.
Thanks for the memory, it takes me back to my first post I ever did to
this list. Just a few weeks ago, had to do with miniperl... ;o)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev