X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
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=UKEb0We9MxglFfbqbARkKgO2E6gntrrlJDxdJLwb7Zz
	fnBPCwnTOkyzbV0hGQzNXQv9eCRjjaV2Yj8DE3iuDWmbmTJmMNO6yarUwLzIo4zr
	nJ8EHbqfoiVbMfnMSIA1syaarGaHXgHXVypMfnL97JmELhTGtkG3TWFVOEHAR0p8
	=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; 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;
	 s=default; bh=dH+oynHwZQmhdCkD000Bs19dRWg=; b=dwK3I6RT3cQ0B9p2P
	b4DLaRR0G27iDxI8F/BB1dbgswmaCHa2trVKh72ukzV2K2xNR764tf/fZlGNKnTB
	4aOAcX+3SW5ivDvIt1gdvXC35gZCJdm7qvZUeZRqdMOtVnsTQbLMCM2Dn+Pu/7N3
	4I/yh3zVwI2EMDFZBo4Sf0CBVI=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BODY_URI_ONLY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: gts.jsbc.cc
Message-ID: <530E8AA9.7080502@jsbc.cc>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:45:29 -0800
From: Jim Burwell <jimb AT jsbc DOT cc>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin64 ignoring /etc/passwd shell field?
References: <530CAA5C DOT 8060505 AT cygwin DOT com> <530D10B2 DOT 7050506 AT jsbc DOT cc> <20140225215511 DOT GB6065 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <530D261C DOT 5000403 AT jsbc DOT cc> <530D2932 DOT 5010906 AT cygwin DOT com> <20140226100712 DOT GS2246 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <530E7E8A DOT 1070303 AT jsbc DOT cc> <530E80E7 DOT 6060201 AT jsbc DOT cc> <530E83DC DOT 9090109 AT lysator DOT liu DOT se> <20140227002659 DOT GA5186 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20140227002936 DOT GB5186 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20140227002936.GB5186@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

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