On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 11:55 +0200, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 10:30 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 06:12:45PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> > > Am 10.07.2012 17:18, schrieb Orion Poplawski:
> > > > Shouldn't that be /usr/ as well. Will it cause problems if it doesn't match
> > > > with the /etc/passwd entry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > yes, /etc/shells might be a problem... I would suggest:
> > >
> > > install the $shell in /usr/bin/$shell, Provide: /bin/$shell in the spec file and
> > > add both paths in /etc/shell
> > >
> > > or we patch "chsh" and the like?
> > >
> > Adding both paths to /etc/shell sounds preferable to me.
>
> I can update the default /etc/shells shell paths to contain both paths
> in setup package, however, other shell packages are modifying it too, so
> it would be better to have some solution without need to involve dash,
> zsh, tcsh, ksh and maybe other shell maintainers and need them to update
> their packages because of the UsrMove changes.
> Any ideas?
I don't understand what's the problem. The /bin symlink pointing
to /usr/bin is not going away any time soon so the shell in passwd
entries and /etc/shells and in shebangs in scripts should stay
at /bin/*sh.
RPM packages can install in /usr/bin and provide /bin/*sh in the spec
file.
Requirements in other packages should stay at /bin/*sh.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
