From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:42:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/5] zsh: security bump to version 5.0.7 In-Reply-To: <54357611.2050005@zacarias.com.ar> (Gustavo Zacarias's message of "Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:36:17 -0300") References: <1412774389-11297-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <1412774389-11297-2-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <87a956eadv.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <54357611.2050005@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <8738aycsii.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Gustavo" == Gustavo Zacarias writes: Hi, >> Same comment as for dash, who should "win" the /bin/sh symlink? >> >> maybe busybox -> dash -> zsh -> bash? > Forgot to cc the list ;) Ups, apparently - Sorry. > It's not really/only a matter of which one wins, it's an init system > nightmare that i'm solving. > Say you've got: > busybox-init + some better shell = the better shell should win. Agreed. > sysvinit + busybox + some better shell = same as above Agreed. > sysvinit + no busybox + some better shell = oops since there's no /bin/sh As long as all shells install a /bin/sh (symlink), that should be fine - But it should also be reproducible, so with a fixed priority. > I don't care which of the better is "betterer", it's pretty subjective, > i just want the crazy combinations to work :) > Of course there's sysvinit + no busybox + no shell but that's another > problem. Such a setup is pretty unlikely to ever happen on purpose imho. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard