This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] sln: Install as a hard link to ldconfig
- From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at imgtec dot com>
- To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:37:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] sln: Install as a hard link to ldconfig
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160713121747.6F56A401AE80B@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <mvminw9d80c.fsf@hawking.suse.de> <aaa80fbd-3194-0124-f34b-270733732cf2@redhat.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1607270020380.4076@tp.orcam.me.uk> <20160801140802.GV6702@vapier.lan>
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > E.g. booting Linux with `rw init=/bin/bash.static' has always worked for
> > me, with the root filesystem mounted r/w and ready for any recovery
> > actions, such as fixing up DSO symlinks. And I see no reason for it to
> > stop working even where an initial RAM disk is used, as an image of such a
> > RAM disk is always self-contained and not used beyond early (pre-init)
> > initialisation needed to pull the root and maybe console device drivers.
>
> bash.static is just as much of a distro-specific convention. i haven't
> heard of this before, and Debian/Ubuntu/Gentoo don't have it.
I find it a bit surprising for a general-purpose distribution not to
provide a static shell by default, but this is as you say a policy set by
individual distributions. I would feel a bit nervous if I were a system
administrator and didn't have a static shell around on a system I was
taking care of.
FWIW, the specific example I have given is based on what RedHat used to
have, dating back to mid 1990s, and what I have been carrying forward.
Maybe they've dropped the shell since or switched to a smaller one; I
haven't been watching this area closely and assumed good old practices
were retained.
Maciej