FS#67681 - [bash] disown /usr/bin/sh, create symlink in post-install instead

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Geert Hendrickx (ghen) - Saturday, 22 August 2020, 22:53 GMT
Last edited by Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion) - Sunday, 23 August 2020, 07:44 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Description:
Could the bash package disown /usr/bin/sh, and create the symlink in a post_install script instead?

This would facilitate users pointing /usr/bin/sh to dash or another shell, avoiding a conflict with bash upgrades.
See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dash for current workarounds.

Patch attached.

(since bash is required by base and cannot be uninstalled, we need no pre_remove counterpart. users deliberately removing bash will understand they must first point that symlink elsewhere.)
   bash-disown-sh.patch (0.7 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Bartłomiej Piotrowski (Barthalion)
Sunday, 23 August 2020, 07:44 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Saturday, 22 August 2020, 23:01 GMT
NoExtract in pacman.conf would be a much better solution for what you want.
Comment by Geert Hendrickx (ghen) - Saturday, 22 August 2020, 23:07 GMT
That's what I use (NoExtract AND NoUpgrade), but this solution was removed from the wiki apparantly because it breaks pacstrap.

Btw, the patch should create the symlink in post_upgrade as well of course, or it will break existing systems.

post_upgrade() {
post_install
}
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Saturday, 22 August 2020, 23:20 GMT
Creating more untracked files is not a good solution, either.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Sunday, 23 August 2020, 02:35 GMT
This will be solved once pacman supports an alternatives system: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Alternatives

I see no reason to disown the file, now or in the future -- and reverting the change would require manual intervention.

I do not see the problem with the current recommendation on the wiki page.

Loading...