Re: [gentoo-dev] Replace 'sash' with 'busybox' as our static rescue shell

[Spider <spider@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1195 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 10:15 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 16:03 +0200, Spider wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 09:38 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> [STUFF]..
> 
> 
> > Oh, and unless you have another editor as binary built into your shell,
> > don't remove ed.  A "trusted" editor is good.  Sash is seldom used for
> > "My system is haxxored"  however its often used for "I fucked up glibc"
> > and an editor is a handy thing, even if its as obscure as "ed"
> 
> busybox.static would provide a minimal vi editor.
> 
> A default compile should produce the following applets (give or take a
> few based on what the new ebuild will provide)
> 
<snip>

Yep,  and the vi editor would be a very good choice as an builtin.
Especially since its far easier to use than Ed is.  


( yes, this is an area I feel rather strongly about, its not a single
time that I've been in static shells doing system recovery after either
hardware,software or administrator failure.  Having a good recovery
system on-disk is wonderful )

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]