DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	 q=dns; s=default; b=QQIg2rWEDlsZ3I5LtVMJ1uEG2L/tQV5HYDXJu3NvHwx
	4lVW47tOduRaGSQIHhdqUOazLc2MFBCcXVPQB7GYClPAdEQ2POoy+jksriFvq+Tc
	BFav3TOtzrXYl3Uu6lDAkUShHnf2BQPdv92Q0U/a11B6Q9wBpgCvU9voAjeWeMU0
	=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Message-ID: <530EE48E.7080903@arcor.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:09:02 +0100
From: Dirk Fassbender <dirk.fassbender@arcor.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Cygwin64 ignoring /etc/passwd shell field?
References: <530CAA5C.8060505@cygwin.com> <530D10B2.7050506@jsbc.cc> <20140225215511.GB6065@calimero.vinschen.de> <530D261C.5000403@jsbc.cc> <530D2932.5010906@cygwin.com> <20140226100712.GS2246@calimero.vinschen.de> <530E7E8A.1070303@jsbc.cc> <530E80E7.6060201@jsbc.cc> <530E83DC.9090109@lysator.liu.se> <20140227002659.GA5186@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20140227002936.GB5186@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <530E8AA9.7080502@jsbc.cc>
In-Reply-To: <530E8AA9.7080502@jsbc.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 27.02.2014 01:45, schrieb Jim Burwell:
> On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells.  Under
>>> Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is
>>> installed.  I don't see any reason for us to do anything different.
>> Rephrasing that in English:
>>
>> Under Fedora, shells add themselves to /etc/shells file when they are
>> installed.
>>
>> cgf
>>
>> --
>> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
>> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>>
> Yep.  At least for common shells.  If someone is super security
> conscious, they can police their /etc/shells file.  But the most common
> usage would be to simply allow a shell that's installed, since if a
> person installed a shell, you can safely presume they want to use it.
>
> --
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
One remark about /etc/shells
The inetutils and inetutils-server packages comes with a file 
/etc/defaults/etc/shells
and the postinstall scripts installs these file into /etc/shells.

Regards
Dirk

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple