From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pardsbane@offthehill.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=4.0.0
Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177])
	by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8491C1A3FF
	for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:22:48 -0600 (CST)
Received: from user-112umh0.biz.mindspring.com ([66.47.90.32] helo=offthehill.org)
	by johnson.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 16DpgG-0004bQ-00
	for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:22:57 -0500
Received: (qmail 13916 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2001 16:15:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO there) (pardsbane@192.168.0.3)
  by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 11 Dec 2001 16:15:14 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Joshua Pollak <pardsbane@offthehill.org>
Organization: offTheHill
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sandbox suggestion
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:22:03 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <E16Deth-0005Et-00@granger.mail.mindspring.net> <3C15CC48.7080904@theleaf.be>
In-Reply-To: <3C15CC48.7080904@theleaf.be>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <E16DpgG-0004bQ-00@johnson.mail.mindspring.net>
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
X-Reply-To: josh@offthehill.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Developer discussion list <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
X-Archives-Salt: dce53c43-1b2a-445d-a3f2-5bb05687e7ef
X-Archives-Hash: 93797d2c7c8cd4a8a5e2548915064e59

On Tuesday 11 December 2001 4:05, you wrote:
> Because then any script that refers to /bin/bash during the installation
> process uses the static bash, while the purpose is this the dynamic bash
> is used. Of course all the scripts could be patched, but then the use of
> the sandbox gets quite a bit devaluated.

Fair enough.

>
> Joshua Pollak wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Just wondering, but I had a suggestion for the dynamic bash ebuild: Rather
> >than replacing the static bash and moving the static bash to /bin/sbash
> >(shouldn't that be /sbin/sbash?) anyway, why not just install the new
> > shell to /bin/dyn-bash or dbash or something, and make the sandbox
> > scripts call everything via that shell?
> >
> >I'm not sure if that's technically possible or not, but it seemed like it
> >would make a lot of things simpler, and reduce the risk of sysadmins
> > messing something up.
> >_______________________________________________
> >gentoo-dev mailing list
> >gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> >http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev