Whats the deal with nologin being a shell script

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Fri Jun 26 15:13:03 UTC 2020


On 6/26/20 3:26 AM, Norbert Lange wrote:
> I am not "protesting", but worst case would be I spend some time implementing
> said applet but for some reason it is not welcome to replace the "demo" applet.
> It possibly a roadblock of someone providing a C replacement.
> 
>> Feel free to persuasively argue in favor of busybox being a better piece
>> of software if it includes a convenient nologin applet.
> 
> Yeah, that's my opinion.
> 
>> I'm afraid I
>> personally am not convinced by any argument claiming it already does
>> have one.
> 
> I don't get that, you are not convinced because the "demo" is already
> sufficient,
> or you are not convinced for arguments *preventing* a C nologin applet
> (because it already has a shell one)?

My "random user" opinion is that busybox currently doesn't have a
nologin applet, because only C applets count (and anything else is
unreliable vendor-specific shellscripts, regardless of whether or not
they happen to reside inside the busybox binary).

Therefore I would be surprised and disappointed if the busybox
maintainer rejected a patch adding one by saying "the shell one is good
enough". As you pointed out, it requires a bunch of features such as a
shell, which may not be desired, and for that reason alone, I would
intuitively expect "here is a nice C version of 'nologin'" to be a
valuable patch.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20200626/17631bd9/attachment.asc>


More information about the busybox mailing list