why CRUX has "sh -> bash" symbolic link concept
i notice that my ".bashrc" and ".bash_profile" files just do not work and then i see i am no longer running BASH but "sh". then i notice, there is no "sh" , "/bin/sh" is just a symbolic link to BASH. i know and i can solve my problem using "chsh -s bash user" but i want to know why CRUX uses "sh -> bash" symbolic link instead of simply using "/bin/bash" as default shell. -- http://arnuld.blogspot.com/
arnuld wrote:
i notice that my ".bashrc" and ".bash_profile" files just do not work and then i see i am no longer running BASH but "sh". then i notice, there is no "sh" , "/bin/sh" is just a symbolic link to BASH. i know and i can solve my problem using "chsh -s bash user" but i want to know why CRUX uses "sh -> bash" symbolic link instead of simply using "/bin/bash" as default shell.
It's pretty common to have /bin/sh be a symlink to /bin/bash, but the question should be, why are you using /bin/sh as a shell?
On 6/21/07, arnuld <geek.arnuld@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] but i want to know why CRUX uses "sh -> bash" symbolic link instead of simply using "/bin/bash" as default shell.
I'm not sure what you mean here; are you opting for the removal of the /bin/sh symlink? That would break *a lot*, since many scripts/programs depend on it, and POSIX says there should always be a /bin/sh. That's quite probably the reason for useradd to default to /bin/sh as well, and since CRUX doesn't do much distro specific configuration, that's what it ends up like in a fresh install. As usual, if you don't like the defaults, just change them; that's the user's task, not CRUX's... Gr. Sander.
participants (3)
-
arnuld -
RedShift -
Sander van Dijk