Mixing
Change /bin/sh link temporarily
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have a piece of software that requires /bin/sh to be Bash, but for Ubuntu the default is Dash and I want to keep it the default; I don't want to change it to Bash permanently.
Is there a way to change it only for a running terminal session? So a program running in this terminal will see /bin/sh linked to bash but the rest of the system will still see Dash? Or can I trick the software to see /bin/sh as Bash even if its not?
I didn't write this software and hacking it to use /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh is not really an option.
command-line bash sh
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have a piece of software that requires /bin/sh to be Bash, but for Ubuntu the default is Dash and I want to keep it the default; I don't want to change it to Bash permanently.
Is there a way to change it only for a running terminal session? So a program running in this terminal will see /bin/sh linked to bash but the rest of the system will still see Dash? Or can I trick the software to see /bin/sh as Bash even if its not?
I didn't write this software and hacking it to use /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh is not really an option.
command-line bash sh
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
2
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
1
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
5
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming/bin/shisbashis a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.
– marcelm
yesterday
1
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I have a piece of software that requires /bin/sh to be Bash, but for Ubuntu the default is Dash and I want to keep it the default; I don't want to change it to Bash permanently.
Is there a way to change it only for a running terminal session? So a program running in this terminal will see /bin/sh linked to bash but the rest of the system will still see Dash? Or can I trick the software to see /bin/sh as Bash even if its not?
I didn't write this software and hacking it to use /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh is not really an option.
command-line bash sh
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
I have a piece of software that requires /bin/sh to be Bash, but for Ubuntu the default is Dash and I want to keep it the default; I don't want to change it to Bash permanently.
Is there a way to change it only for a running terminal session? So a program running in this terminal will see /bin/sh linked to bash but the rest of the system will still see Dash? Or can I trick the software to see /bin/sh as Bash even if its not?
I didn't write this software and hacking it to use /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh is not really an option.
command-line bash sh
command-line bash sh
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
edited yesterday
David Foerster
26.1k1361106
26.1k1361106
asked yesterday
corwin
311
asked yesterday
corwin
311
asked yesterday
corwin
311
311
2
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
1
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
5
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming/bin/shisbashis a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.
– marcelm
yesterday
1
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
1
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
5
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming/bin/shisbashis a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.
– marcelm
yesterday
1
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago
2
2
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
1
1
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
5
5
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming
/bin/sh is bash is a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.– marcelm
yesterday
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming
/bin/sh is bash is a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.– marcelm
yesterday
1
1
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
If it's a script, just call the script as
bash scriptname.sh
No need to change links at all.
For compiled executable you can go chroot route:
mkdir rootfs
cp -a /usr rootfs/
cp -a /lib rootfs/
cp -a /lib64 rootfs/
cp /bin/bash rootfs/bin/sh
cp yourprogram rootfs/
sudo chroot rootfs sh
And then run your program or sudo chroot rootfs /yourprogram
However, in practice there is no reason why you can't use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh. In fact, prior to version 6.10 Ubuntu was using /bin/bash as /bin/sh, and then they switched due to /bin/sh being a much faster, leaner implementation of POSIX /bin/sh (that is, it adheres to the POSIX standard for how Unix-like operating system utilities and OS should behave and implement some of their internals), and due to portability reasons. I strongly recommend reading Gilles' answer as well for historical notes on how /bin/dash came about. As for compatibility, scripts written for dash using POSIX features will run with bash being a default shell perfectly fine. Usually, it's the other way around that causes problems - bash has features that aren't required by /bin/sh, like the <<< syntax or arrays.
Additionally, the command in question is probably written with RHEL or CentOS in mind, which does use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh, suggests two things: they probably targeted specific OS and didn't adhere to POSIX principles. In that case, it would also be a good idea to check what other things the command requires, since if it's really written with another OS in mind, you might run into more problems than just re-linking /bin/sh.
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (vialnorcp -l).
– David Foerster
yesterday
1
Considermount --rbind --make-rslaverather thancp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Alsosudo chrootruns the script as root which might not be optimal.
– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Two answers already suggest chrooting and bind mounts, and there's a third, closely related option: mount namespaces. Using the unshare program, you can create a new mount namespace, and mounts within this namespace won't affect other namespaces.
For example, in one terminal, I do:
muru|[0] ~ sudo unshare -m /bin/bash
root@muru-1604:~# sudo mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh
root@muru-1604:~# /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
root@muru-1604:~# sudo -iu muru
muru|[0] ~ /bin/sh --version # propagates
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
And in another:
$ /bin/sh --version
/bin/sh: 0: Illegal option --
So you could run this inflexible program in its own mount namespace.
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
One possibility would be a bind mount of a single file. To do this,
you mount the file /bin/bash just over /bin/dash so bash sort
of covers or hides dash. Here are the steps (including the reverse):
root@myhost:~# cd /bin
# situation before (bash and dash are different):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# mount /bin/bash over /bin/dash:
root@myhost:/bin# mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are the same):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# Now everything that runs `/bin/sh` in fact uses `/bin/bash`.
# check what the symlink "sh" says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
...
# undo the mount:
root@myhost:/bin# umount /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are different again):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# check what the symlink "sh" now says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
I didn't try to mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh to directly hide
the symlink, though. The above mount trick just makes bash and
dash identical so that sh refers to bash although it points todash. Also, this is a system-wide solution, not only for the current
terminal window.
I must confess, this might be overkill and simply changing the symlink temporarily is far easier.
I just wanted to show another possible way.
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You should be able to change it for just the current session by using an alias. Before running your command in the terminal:
alias sh=bash
This will be temporary and only active in the terminal it was executed from.
HOWEVER: This will NOT WORK if your script uses absolute paths.
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an
explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not
seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would
probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper
environment if I had to use it at all. – vanadium
Unfortunately, "hacking" the script might be your only option. Per convo with @vanadium, you could create a wrapper script like this:
#!/bin/bash
sudo ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh
/run/my/script
sudo ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh
However, during the duration of your script, you better hope nothing on your system explicitly requires dash.
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
If it's a script, just call the script as
bash scriptname.sh
No need to change links at all.
For compiled executable you can go chroot route:
mkdir rootfs
cp -a /usr rootfs/
cp -a /lib rootfs/
cp -a /lib64 rootfs/
cp /bin/bash rootfs/bin/sh
cp yourprogram rootfs/
sudo chroot rootfs sh
And then run your program or sudo chroot rootfs /yourprogram
However, in practice there is no reason why you can't use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh. In fact, prior to version 6.10 Ubuntu was using /bin/bash as /bin/sh, and then they switched due to /bin/sh being a much faster, leaner implementation of POSIX /bin/sh (that is, it adheres to the POSIX standard for how Unix-like operating system utilities and OS should behave and implement some of their internals), and due to portability reasons. I strongly recommend reading Gilles' answer as well for historical notes on how /bin/dash came about. As for compatibility, scripts written for dash using POSIX features will run with bash being a default shell perfectly fine. Usually, it's the other way around that causes problems - bash has features that aren't required by /bin/sh, like the <<< syntax or arrays.
Additionally, the command in question is probably written with RHEL or CentOS in mind, which does use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh, suggests two things: they probably targeted specific OS and didn't adhere to POSIX principles. In that case, it would also be a good idea to check what other things the command requires, since if it's really written with another OS in mind, you might run into more problems than just re-linking /bin/sh.
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (vialnorcp -l).
– David Foerster
yesterday
1
Considermount --rbind --make-rslaverather thancp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Alsosudo chrootruns the script as root which might not be optimal.
– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
If it's a script, just call the script as
bash scriptname.sh
No need to change links at all.
For compiled executable you can go chroot route:
mkdir rootfs
cp -a /usr rootfs/
cp -a /lib rootfs/
cp -a /lib64 rootfs/
cp /bin/bash rootfs/bin/sh
cp yourprogram rootfs/
sudo chroot rootfs sh
And then run your program or sudo chroot rootfs /yourprogram
However, in practice there is no reason why you can't use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh. In fact, prior to version 6.10 Ubuntu was using /bin/bash as /bin/sh, and then they switched due to /bin/sh being a much faster, leaner implementation of POSIX /bin/sh (that is, it adheres to the POSIX standard for how Unix-like operating system utilities and OS should behave and implement some of their internals), and due to portability reasons. I strongly recommend reading Gilles' answer as well for historical notes on how /bin/dash came about. As for compatibility, scripts written for dash using POSIX features will run with bash being a default shell perfectly fine. Usually, it's the other way around that causes problems - bash has features that aren't required by /bin/sh, like the <<< syntax or arrays.
Additionally, the command in question is probably written with RHEL or CentOS in mind, which does use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh, suggests two things: they probably targeted specific OS and didn't adhere to POSIX principles. In that case, it would also be a good idea to check what other things the command requires, since if it's really written with another OS in mind, you might run into more problems than just re-linking /bin/sh.
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (vialnorcp -l).
– David Foerster
yesterday
1
Considermount --rbind --make-rslaverather thancp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Alsosudo chrootruns the script as root which might not be optimal.
– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
If it's a script, just call the script as
bash scriptname.sh
No need to change links at all.
For compiled executable you can go chroot route:
mkdir rootfs
cp -a /usr rootfs/
cp -a /lib rootfs/
cp -a /lib64 rootfs/
cp /bin/bash rootfs/bin/sh
cp yourprogram rootfs/
sudo chroot rootfs sh
And then run your program or sudo chroot rootfs /yourprogram
However, in practice there is no reason why you can't use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh. In fact, prior to version 6.10 Ubuntu was using /bin/bash as /bin/sh, and then they switched due to /bin/sh being a much faster, leaner implementation of POSIX /bin/sh (that is, it adheres to the POSIX standard for how Unix-like operating system utilities and OS should behave and implement some of their internals), and due to portability reasons. I strongly recommend reading Gilles' answer as well for historical notes on how /bin/dash came about. As for compatibility, scripts written for dash using POSIX features will run with bash being a default shell perfectly fine. Usually, it's the other way around that causes problems - bash has features that aren't required by /bin/sh, like the <<< syntax or arrays.
Additionally, the command in question is probably written with RHEL or CentOS in mind, which does use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh, suggests two things: they probably targeted specific OS and didn't adhere to POSIX principles. In that case, it would also be a good idea to check what other things the command requires, since if it's really written with another OS in mind, you might run into more problems than just re-linking /bin/sh.
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
If it's a script, just call the script as
bash scriptname.sh
No need to change links at all.
For compiled executable you can go chroot route:
mkdir rootfs
cp -a /usr rootfs/
cp -a /lib rootfs/
cp -a /lib64 rootfs/
cp /bin/bash rootfs/bin/sh
cp yourprogram rootfs/
sudo chroot rootfs sh
And then run your program or sudo chroot rootfs /yourprogram
However, in practice there is no reason why you can't use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh. In fact, prior to version 6.10 Ubuntu was using /bin/bash as /bin/sh, and then they switched due to /bin/sh being a much faster, leaner implementation of POSIX /bin/sh (that is, it adheres to the POSIX standard for how Unix-like operating system utilities and OS should behave and implement some of their internals), and due to portability reasons. I strongly recommend reading Gilles' answer as well for historical notes on how /bin/dash came about. As for compatibility, scripts written for dash using POSIX features will run with bash being a default shell perfectly fine. Usually, it's the other way around that causes problems - bash has features that aren't required by /bin/sh, like the <<< syntax or arrays.
Additionally, the command in question is probably written with RHEL or CentOS in mind, which does use /bin/bash as a symlink to /bin/sh, suggests two things: they probably targeted specific OS and didn't adhere to POSIX principles. In that case, it would also be a good idea to check what other things the command requires, since if it's really written with another OS in mind, you might run into more problems than just re-linking /bin/sh.
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
edited yesterday
Melebius
3,76841636
3,76841636
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
65.2k9130285
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (vialnorcp -l).
– David Foerster
yesterday
1
Considermount --rbind --make-rslaverather thancp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Alsosudo chrootruns the script as root which might not be optimal.
– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
 |Â
show 2 more comments
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (vialnorcp -l).
– David Foerster
yesterday
1
Considermount --rbind --make-rslaverather thancp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Alsosudo chrootruns the script as root which might not be optimal.
– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
2
2
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
LOL. Life can be so simple :-)
– PerlDuck
yesterday
1
1
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
You earned my upvote :)
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
@JoshuaBesneatte Thank you ! Glad you find my answer useful
– Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
yesterday
3
3
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (via
ln or cp -l).– David Foerster
yesterday
+1 and it might be better to create hard links instead of copies (via
ln or cp -l).– David Foerster
yesterday
1
1
Consider
mount --rbind --make-rslave rather than cp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Also sudo chroot runs the script as root which might not be optimal.– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
Consider
mount --rbind --make-rslave rather than cp -r. Can be made read-only as well. Also sudo chroot runs the script as root which might not be optimal.– Roman Odaisky
yesterday
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Two answers already suggest chrooting and bind mounts, and there's a third, closely related option: mount namespaces. Using the unshare program, you can create a new mount namespace, and mounts within this namespace won't affect other namespaces.
For example, in one terminal, I do:
muru|[0] ~ sudo unshare -m /bin/bash
root@muru-1604:~# sudo mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh
root@muru-1604:~# /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
root@muru-1604:~# sudo -iu muru
muru|[0] ~ /bin/sh --version # propagates
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
And in another:
$ /bin/sh --version
/bin/sh: 0: Illegal option --
So you could run this inflexible program in its own mount namespace.
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
Two answers already suggest chrooting and bind mounts, and there's a third, closely related option: mount namespaces. Using the unshare program, you can create a new mount namespace, and mounts within this namespace won't affect other namespaces.
For example, in one terminal, I do:
muru|[0] ~ sudo unshare -m /bin/bash
root@muru-1604:~# sudo mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh
root@muru-1604:~# /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
root@muru-1604:~# sudo -iu muru
muru|[0] ~ /bin/sh --version # propagates
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
And in another:
$ /bin/sh --version
/bin/sh: 0: Illegal option --
So you could run this inflexible program in its own mount namespace.
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Two answers already suggest chrooting and bind mounts, and there's a third, closely related option: mount namespaces. Using the unshare program, you can create a new mount namespace, and mounts within this namespace won't affect other namespaces.
For example, in one terminal, I do:
muru|[0] ~ sudo unshare -m /bin/bash
root@muru-1604:~# sudo mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh
root@muru-1604:~# /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
root@muru-1604:~# sudo -iu muru
muru|[0] ~ /bin/sh --version # propagates
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
And in another:
$ /bin/sh --version
/bin/sh: 0: Illegal option --
So you could run this inflexible program in its own mount namespace.
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
Two answers already suggest chrooting and bind mounts, and there's a third, closely related option: mount namespaces. Using the unshare program, you can create a new mount namespace, and mounts within this namespace won't affect other namespaces.
For example, in one terminal, I do:
muru|[0] ~ sudo unshare -m /bin/bash
root@muru-1604:~# sudo mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh
root@muru-1604:~# /bin/sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
root@muru-1604:~# sudo -iu muru
muru|[0] ~ /bin/sh --version # propagates
GNU bash, version 4.4.18(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
This is free software; you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
And in another:
$ /bin/sh --version
/bin/sh: 0: Illegal option --
So you could run this inflexible program in its own mount namespace.
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
edited yesterday
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
65.2k9130285
65.2k9130285
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
answered yesterday
muru
130k19273463
130k19273463
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
One possibility would be a bind mount of a single file. To do this,
you mount the file /bin/bash just over /bin/dash so bash sort
of covers or hides dash. Here are the steps (including the reverse):
root@myhost:~# cd /bin
# situation before (bash and dash are different):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# mount /bin/bash over /bin/dash:
root@myhost:/bin# mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are the same):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# Now everything that runs `/bin/sh` in fact uses `/bin/bash`.
# check what the symlink "sh" says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
...
# undo the mount:
root@myhost:/bin# umount /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are different again):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# check what the symlink "sh" now says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
I didn't try to mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh to directly hide
the symlink, though. The above mount trick just makes bash and
dash identical so that sh refers to bash although it points todash. Also, this is a system-wide solution, not only for the current
terminal window.
I must confess, this might be overkill and simply changing the symlink temporarily is far easier.
I just wanted to show another possible way.
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
One possibility would be a bind mount of a single file. To do this,
you mount the file /bin/bash just over /bin/dash so bash sort
of covers or hides dash. Here are the steps (including the reverse):
root@myhost:~# cd /bin
# situation before (bash and dash are different):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# mount /bin/bash over /bin/dash:
root@myhost:/bin# mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are the same):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# Now everything that runs `/bin/sh` in fact uses `/bin/bash`.
# check what the symlink "sh" says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
...
# undo the mount:
root@myhost:/bin# umount /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are different again):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# check what the symlink "sh" now says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
I didn't try to mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh to directly hide
the symlink, though. The above mount trick just makes bash and
dash identical so that sh refers to bash although it points todash. Also, this is a system-wide solution, not only for the current
terminal window.
I must confess, this might be overkill and simply changing the symlink temporarily is far easier.
I just wanted to show another possible way.
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
One possibility would be a bind mount of a single file. To do this,
you mount the file /bin/bash just over /bin/dash so bash sort
of covers or hides dash. Here are the steps (including the reverse):
root@myhost:~# cd /bin
# situation before (bash and dash are different):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# mount /bin/bash over /bin/dash:
root@myhost:/bin# mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are the same):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# Now everything that runs `/bin/sh` in fact uses `/bin/bash`.
# check what the symlink "sh" says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
...
# undo the mount:
root@myhost:/bin# umount /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are different again):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# check what the symlink "sh" now says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
I didn't try to mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh to directly hide
the symlink, though. The above mount trick just makes bash and
dash identical so that sh refers to bash although it points todash. Also, this is a system-wide solution, not only for the current
terminal window.
I must confess, this might be overkill and simply changing the symlink temporarily is far easier.
I just wanted to show another possible way.
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
One possibility would be a bind mount of a single file. To do this,
you mount the file /bin/bash just over /bin/dash so bash sort
of covers or hides dash. Here are the steps (including the reverse):
root@myhost:~# cd /bin
# situation before (bash and dash are different):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# mount /bin/bash over /bin/dash:
root@myhost:/bin# mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are the same):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# Now everything that runs `/bin/sh` in fact uses `/bin/bash`.
# check what the symlink "sh" says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
...
# undo the mount:
root@myhost:/bin# umount /bin/dash
# situation now (bash and dash are different again):
root@myhost:/bin# ls -l *sh*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1113504 Apr 4 20:30 bash
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 121432 Jan 25 2018 dash
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 13 11:38 sh -> dash
...
# check what the symlink "sh" now says:
root@myhost:/bin# sh --version
sh: 0: Illegal option --
I didn't try to mount --bind /bin/bash /bin/sh to directly hide
the symlink, though. The above mount trick just makes bash and
dash identical so that sh refers to bash although it points todash. Also, this is a system-wide solution, not only for the current
terminal window.
I must confess, this might be overkill and simply changing the symlink temporarily is far easier.
I just wanted to show another possible way.
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
answered yesterday
PerlDuck
3,88311030
3,88311030
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You should be able to change it for just the current session by using an alias. Before running your command in the terminal:
alias sh=bash
This will be temporary and only active in the terminal it was executed from.
HOWEVER: This will NOT WORK if your script uses absolute paths.
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an
explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not
seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would
probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper
environment if I had to use it at all. – vanadium
Unfortunately, "hacking" the script might be your only option. Per convo with @vanadium, you could create a wrapper script like this:
#!/bin/bash
sudo ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh
/run/my/script
sudo ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh
However, during the duration of your script, you better hope nothing on your system explicitly requires dash.
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
You should be able to change it for just the current session by using an alias. Before running your command in the terminal:
alias sh=bash
This will be temporary and only active in the terminal it was executed from.
HOWEVER: This will NOT WORK if your script uses absolute paths.
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an
explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not
seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would
probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper
environment if I had to use it at all. – vanadium
Unfortunately, "hacking" the script might be your only option. Per convo with @vanadium, you could create a wrapper script like this:
#!/bin/bash
sudo ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh
/run/my/script
sudo ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh
However, during the duration of your script, you better hope nothing on your system explicitly requires dash.
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You should be able to change it for just the current session by using an alias. Before running your command in the terminal:
alias sh=bash
This will be temporary and only active in the terminal it was executed from.
HOWEVER: This will NOT WORK if your script uses absolute paths.
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an
explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not
seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would
probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper
environment if I had to use it at all. – vanadium
Unfortunately, "hacking" the script might be your only option. Per convo with @vanadium, you could create a wrapper script like this:
#!/bin/bash
sudo ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh
/run/my/script
sudo ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh
However, during the duration of your script, you better hope nothing on your system explicitly requires dash.
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
You should be able to change it for just the current session by using an alias. Before running your command in the terminal:
alias sh=bash
This will be temporary and only active in the terminal it was executed from.
HOWEVER: This will NOT WORK if your script uses absolute paths.
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an
explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not
seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would
probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper
environment if I had to use it at all. – vanadium
Unfortunately, "hacking" the script might be your only option. Per convo with @vanadium, you could create a wrapper script like this:
#!/bin/bash
sudo ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh
/run/my/script
sudo ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh
However, during the duration of your script, you better hope nothing on your system explicitly requires dash.
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
answered yesterday
Joshua Besneatte
1,569820
1,569820
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
add a comment |Â
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
3
3
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
Good idea as such, but if the software directly calls /bin/sh with an explicit pathname, it will not work. Anyway, that software does not seem to be very properly designed making such assumptions. I would probably run it from a script that prepares and resets the proper environment if I had to use it at all.
– vanadium
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I would be interested to see how you would go about preparing the environment. would you use chroot?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
I did not have such ambitious ideas. I was just thinking of a script that would temporarily have sh link to bash and reset when done. The main problem in this question is with the "piece of software" concerned, I think.
– vanadium
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
what would happen if something else needed dash whilst the symbolic link was moved.... something like ln -sf /bin/bash /bin/sh at the begginning and ln -sf /bin/dash /bin/sh when done?
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
Most other processes probably will happily use bash instead of dash if the link is changed. Yes, in that vain, but to mimic the current situation, I would make relative links, i.e. "cd /bin ; ln -sf bash sh", but that is probably a purist detail that won't matter in practice.
– vanadium
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1074295%2fchange-bin-sh-link-temporarily%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
You can change it temporarily - but not (AFAIK) limit the scope to a single terminal session. See for example /bin/sh is a symbolic link that doesn't point to /bin/bash
– steeldriver
yesterday
could you make an alias... alias sh=bash ? and then just delete the alias from .bashrc when you are done (it will be at the end of the file) this should work and not affect teh entire system and be very easy to undo...
– Joshua Besneatte
yesterday
1
Possibly of interest: unix.stackexchange.com/questions/468289/…
– ejjl
yesterday
5
Whatever you do, please also report this as a bug for the software in question. Because assuming
/bin/shisbashis a bug, and it causes actual problems (as you're finding out). If no one complains, it may never get changed.– marcelm
yesterday
1
@SergiyKolodyazhnyy If the bug doesn't cause problems on the only platform(s) they support, then they can probably get away with it. It's still a bug though.
– marcelm
22 hours ago