[SunHELP] /bin/sh || /sbin/sh ?

thanks for the clarification, I snoozed on this one I admin linux as well an

I believe source confusion came from the symlink /bin/sh -> /bin/bash.  
The source dirs gave hints too.
egad!

=).


-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Snyder [mailto:larrys at lexis-nexis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 10:16 PM
To: RMarkham at hafeleamericas.com
Subject: Re: [SunHELP] /bin/sh || /sbin/sh ?


This is an easy one.  You want root's default shell to be statically linked.
If something breaks and you have to bring the box up single, you don't need
the grief of a shell that has .so libs it can't find. Users should have the
/bin/sh, as it takes less space, etc.  They're both Bourne shells with the
same characteristics, but root needs a bit more bulletproofness. HTH,
-ls-


"Markham, Richard" <RMarkham at hafeleamericas.com> wrote:
> I noticed a discrepency between a couple of my boxes where roots shell 
> was set to /bin/sh on one and /sbin/sh on the other.
> 
> # ls -l /bin/sh
> -r-xr-xr-x   4 root     root       95316 Jan 18 18:08 /bin/sh
> # ls -l /sbin/sh
> -r-xr-xr-x   2 root     root      286884 Jan 18 18:08 /sbin/sh
> 
> I had thought /bin/sh was choice but given this.......:
> 
> # file /bin/sh
> /bin/sh:        ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, dynamically
> linked, stripped
> # file /sbin/sh
> /sbin/sh:       ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, statically
> linked, stripped
> 
> and the fact that the remainder of my boxes have /sbin/sh,
> 
> ....that idea gets shot out the window.  I obviously want statically 
> linked on any box
> with a /usr mount point.   So what gives?  Is it a backup shell or is
> /bin/sh wear'n a bourne
> logo?  =) anyways input on this would help settle my soul. 
> _______________________________________________
> SunHELP maillist  -  SunHELP at sunhelp.org 
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/sunhelp