'su lfs' dropping into the background
alex at linuxfromscratch.org
Wed Jan 21 12:48:24 PST 2004
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:33:31PM +0100, Alex Groenewoud wrote:
> >>What a mess. The -m flag to useradd doesn't just create the /home/lfs
> >>directory, but also populates it with all the files from /etc/skel.
> >Yes, of course. So, your /etc/skel is a mess. I don't see how LFS can do
> >much about that.
> I second that.
But but but... If we cater for old and even for broken hosts, shouldn't
we also cater for hosts with a borken /etc/skel?
Well, taking up the -k hint from Bill, I wondered where to find a dir
that would be guaranteed to be empty, and tried:
root:~# useradd -s /bin/bash -m lfs -k /home/lfs
It worked, /home/lfs stayed empty. Then I tried:
root:~# useradd -s /bin/bash -m lfs -k /hmhmhm
That worked too, and useradd doesn't complain about the non-existent
So I propose to add something like "-k /absent" or "-k /nosuch" to the
useradd command in the book, together with a little explanation.
Anyone who sees any drawbacks?
> .profile is never looked at if .bash_profile (or .bash_login) exists.
> Its not a problem here. What could be a problem is /etc/profile on the
> host system.
I tried it with an empty /etc/profile: same result. Nothing helped,
until I removed the "exec" word from .bash_profile.
The following .bash_profile works just fine:
env -i HOME=$HOME TERM=$TERM PS1='\u:\w$ ' /bin/bash; exit
This of course keeps an extra bash running, but that's a small price to
pay to work around a malfunctioning exec command, IMHO.
> I can't reproduce either. Alex, what version of bash are you using?
lfs:~$ bash --version | head -1
GNU bash, version 2.04.0(1)-release (i386-suse-linux)
lfs:~$ env --version | head -1
env (GNU sh-utils) 2.0
More information about the lfs-dev