From rpratt1950@earthlink.net  Thu Dec 30 19:12:30 2004
Return-Path: <rpratt1950@earthlink.net>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DA116A4CE
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:12:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pop-a065b10.pas.sa.earthlink.net (pop-a065b10.pas.sa.earthlink.net [207.217.121.170])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169B443D39
	for <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:12:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rpratt1950@earthlink.net)
Received: from fl-69-69-238-139.dyn.sprint-hsd.net ([69.69.238.139] helo=kt.weeble.com)
	by pop-a065b10.pas.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 1Ck5in-00050Y-00
	for FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org; Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:12:29 -0800
Message-Id: <1104433949.0@kt.weeble.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:12:29 -0500
From: "Randy Pratt" <rpratt1950@earthlink.net>
To: "FreeBSD gnats submit" <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org>
Subject: 4.11-RC1: /etc/shells missing /usr/local/bin/bash
X-Send-Pr-Version: gtk-send-pr 0.4.1 
X-GNATS-Notify:

>Number:         75668
>Category:       conf
>Synopsis:       4.11-RC1: /etc/shells missing /usr/local/bin/bash
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Dec 30 19:20:25 GMT 2004
>Closed-Date:    Wed Feb 23 18:20:08 GMT 2005
>Last-Modified:  Fri Feb 25 11:00:42 GMT 2005
>Originator:     Randy Pratt
>Release:        FreeBSD 4.11-RC1 i386
>Organization:
>Environment:


System:  4.11-RC1 FreeBSD 4.11-RC1 #0: Fri Dec 17 16:47:15 GMT 2004


>Description:


In a fresh install of 4.11-RC1  /etc/shells contains "/usr/local/bin/bash2" instead of the familar "/usr/local/bin/bash", consequently sysinstall and chsh do not see "/usr/local/bin/bash" as a valid shell.

This is different than the behavior in the past.


>How-To-Repeat:


Try to set a user's shell to bash with sysinstall or chsh.


>Fix:


Change "/usr/local/bin/bash2" to "/usr/local/bin/bash" or additionally add "/usr/local/bin/bash" to /etc/shells.


>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:

From: Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>
To: Randy Pratt <rpratt1950@earthlink.net>
Cc: FreeBSD gnats submit <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: misc/75668: 4.11-RC1: /etc/shells missing /usr/local/bin/bash
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:48:00 +0000

 On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:12:29PM -0500, Randy Pratt wrote:
 > 
 > In a fresh install of 4.11-RC1  /etc/shells contains "/usr/local/bin/bash2"
 > instead of the familar "/usr/local/bin/bash", consequently sysinstall and
 > chsh do not see "/usr/local/bin/bash" as a valid shell.
 
 I believe that this is a feature of the bash2 port - if you want
 /usr/local/bin/bash in /etc/shells then you have to install shells/bash
 or shells/bash1.
 
 Ceri
 -- 
 Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
 not sure about the former.			  -- Einstein (attrib.)

From: DanGer <danger@rulez.sk>
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, rpratt1950@earthlink.net
Cc:  
Subject: Re: conf/75668: 4.11-RC1: /etc/shells missing /usr/local/bin/bash
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:58:11 -0800

 Hello freebsd-gnats-submit,
 
   since bash isn't part of the base system, it seems like a bash
   port/package issue and this PR should be closed, shouldn't it ?
 
 -- 
 Best regards
 
 +----------==/\/\==----------+             FreeBSD
 |  DanGer <danger@rulez.sk>  |     (__)    The
 | DanGer@IRCnet ICQ261701668 |  \\\'',)    Power
 |   http://danger.rulez.sk   |    \/  \ ^  To
 +----------==\/\/==----------+    .\._/_)  Serve
 
 [ Clinton: "Well, how're we gonna pull the wool over their eyes today?" ]
 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: keramida 
State-Changed-When: Wed Feb 23 18:18:45 GMT 2005 
State-Changed-Why:  
The bash ports take care of updating /etc/shells at install 
and deinstall time.  Something else is wrong with the setup 
of the machine that exhibited the problem. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=75668 

From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>
To: Randy Pratt <rpratt1950@earthlink.net>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: conf/75668: 4.11-RC1: /etc/shells missing /usr/local/bin/bash
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:59:11 +0200

 On 2005-02-23 23:08, Randy Pratt <rpratt1950@earthlink.net> wrote:
 >On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:20:07 GMT
 >Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
 >> State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
 >> State-Changed-By: keramida
 >> State-Changed-When: Wed Feb 23 18:18:45 GMT 2005
 >> State-Changed-Why:
 >> The bash ports take care of updating /etc/shells at install
 >> and deinstall time.  Something else is wrong with the setup
 >> of the machine that exhibited the problem.
 >>
 >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=75668
 >
 > The problem exhibits itself during the initial installation of
 > the OS.  Its also dependent on which bash is included on the
 > cdrom media.  Some have bash and some have bash2.  That is what
 > seems to determine what goes in /etc/shells.
 >
 > Its not readily apparent of what you need to enter for a user's
 > bash shell when creating a new user at installation with sysinstall.
 > If bash2 is what is included in the packages, then entering
 > "/usr/local/bin/bash" generates an error.
 >
 > In the Handbook, Figure 2-62. Add User Information, shows
 > /usr/local/bin/bash as the shell when bash2 was previously
 > added.  In the past, this did work since both bash and bash2
 > were in the /etc/shells.
 >
 > The 4.11-RELEASE is long past so it doesn't matter for that but
 > I think some small disconnect is there.
 
 I think we have to update the Handbook.  I just deinstalled bash2 and
 installed it as a package (built locally, but that shouldn't matter).
 The package install/deinstall process correctly updates /etc/shells.
 
 This means that what seems like a mistake in the Handbook, is very
 probably just that: a bug of the Handbook (which should certainly
 be fixed).
 
>Unformatted:
