Solved Just updated 13.1 to 13.2 and issue arises, help

Status
Not open for further replies.
Attempting to automatically merge changes in files... done.

The following file could not be merged automatically: /etc/passwd
Press Enter to edit this file in vi and resolve the conflicts
manually...

how do i resolve this in vi ?

Code:
<<<<<<< current version
# $FreeBSD$
#
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/usr/local/bin/bash
=======
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh
>>>>>>> 13.2-RELEASE
toor:*:0:0:Bourne-again Superuser:/root:
daemon:*:1:1:Owner of many system processes:/root:/usr/sbin/nologin
operator:*:2:5:System &:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
bin:*:3:7:Binaries Commands and Source:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
tty:*:4:65533:Tty Sandbox:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
kmem:*:5:65533:KMem Sandbox:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
games:*:7:13:Games pseudo-user:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
news:*:8:8:News Subsystem:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
man:*:9:9:Mister Man Pages:/usr/share/man:/usr/sbin/nologin
sshd:*:22:22:Secure Shell Daemon:/var/empty:/usr/sbin/nologin
smmsp:*:25:25:Sendmail Submission User:/var/spool/clientmqueue:/usr/sbin/nologin
mailnull:*:26:26:Sendmail Default User:/var/spool/mqueue:/usr/sbin/nologin
bind:*:53:53:Bind Sandbox:/:/usr/sbin/nologin
unbound:*:59:59:Unbound DNS Resolver:/var/unbound:/usr/sbin/nologin
proxy:*:62:62:Packet Filter pseudo-user:/nonexistent:/usr/sbin/nologin
_pflogd:*:64:64:pflogd privsep user:/var/empty:/usr/sbin/nologin
/var/db/freebsd-update/merge/new//etc/passwd: unmodified: line 1
Code:
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/usr/local/bin/bash
=======
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh
I use bash and who is Charlie?
 
it was scarier then I thought, I just Esc, Shift + : , wq , and it worked itself out.
 
I use bash and who is Charlie?
It's root , regarding the why? see below
 
usually I change default editor to another, to speedup the process.
For csh() you can run setenv EDITOR ee to change default editor to ee().

You shoud resolve conflict manually.
Between << and == you can see your current config.
Between === and >>> you can see new config.
You should delete lines with "<<<" "===" ">>>",
and you should leave the lines which you require, and delete the same lines which you don't like.
<<<<<<< current version
# $FreeBSD$
#
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/usr/local/bin/bash
=======
root:*:0:0:Charlie &:/root:/bin/csh
>>>>>>> 13.2-RELEASE
In this config, you have changed default shell for root from csh to bash.
It's fine, but sometimes it may be a source of funny issues.
If you like bash - use another account with bash, 'toor' for example.
 
If you like bash - use another account with bash, 'toor' for example.

https://linux-audit.com/what-is-the-toor-user-on-freebsd/
Linux and *BSD systems have by default a root user installed. As it has a user ID of zero (0), it gains the highest level of permissions from the kernel. On FreeBSD systems, there is also the ‘toor’ user, with the equal high-level user ID of zero. It is simply the reversed version of ‘root’, and installed as a backup account. By default, it has no shell assigned,
so it can’t log in.

$ su toor
Password:
su: Sorry
userx@FreeBeSD:~$ su
Password:
[root@FreeBeSD /home/userx]#
 
Having both root and toor is exactly to allow one of them to safely use a shell installed from ports/packages, while the other still uses a shell from base, so you have a fallback even if your ports/packages installations are completely messed up.

Which one you use for what doesn't matter. I personally prefer to use root in normal operation (with zsh in my case) and have toor configured with /bin/sh as the failsafe fallback.

Anyways, although I don't know why the default shell keeps switching back and forth between "sh" and "csh", root's shell was "sh" in 13.0 and 13.1 and is now again "csh" in 13.2, this is what happened here. There's a change in FreeBSD's default config and you changed the very same thing locally, so this can't be automatically merged, the tool can't know which change to pick. You're expected to understand these conflict markers and just remove the version you don't want.
 
Having both root and toor is exactly to allow one of them to safely use a shell installed from ports/packages, while the other still uses a shell from base, so you have a fallback even if your ports/packages installations are completely messed up.

Which one you use for what doesn't matter. I personally prefer to use root in normal operation (with zsh in my case) and have toor configured with /bin/sh as the failsafe fallback.

Anyways, although I don't know why the default shell keeps switching back and forth between "sh" and "csh", root's shell was "sh" in 13.0 and 13.1 and is now again "csh" in 13.2, this is what happened here. There's a change in FreeBSD's default config and you changed the very same thing locally, so this can't be automatically merged, the tool can't know which change to pick. You're expected to understand these conflict markers and just remove the version you don't want.
that's basically what I figured toor was for not even knowing that existed until that came up and Ii seen that as a user in passwd, and I just issued a :wq in VI figuring I can just easily change it to bash if I needed to regardless of how that turned out, and yeah I noticed it being csh and not sh as well. which would still have gotten issues if left at sh to begin with,

it might be some developers twisted scene of humor to change it now an again. as I thought sh was the de facto shell like vi is the de facto (developed when mice where not yet invented wish they would stop using it as a default editor ) editor
 
which would still have gotten issues if left at sh to begin with,
No, why do you think so? You get a merge conflict exactly when your local change conflicts with an "upstream" change -- both sides must have changes for that to happen. And also, this is not an "issue", you're just asked to resolve the conflict in the way you want.

it might be some developers twisted scene of humor to change it now an again. as I thought sh was the de facto shell
Much more likely (and maybe one day you will learn not to jump to conclusions and immediately accuse people):

While "sh" is the "standard" shell (e.g. regarding POSIX, but generally on many unix-like systems), "csh" has traditionally been the standard "interactive" shell on BSD systems. So when the default shell for root was changed to "sh" in 13, I assume there was an endless river of unfounded complaints by "traditionalists" and the devs finally gave in. Still silly.
 
Much more likely (and maybe one day you will learn not to jump to conclusions and immediately accuse people):


You're showing that you Don't even understand basic english sentence structure.

"it might be some developers twisted scene of humor to change it now an again.[ ... ]"

might:
Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may:
therefore that is a very safe way jump to conclusions to make an assumption about something without actually accusing anyone of anything .Unless the other does not even understand words and their usages by their definitions. then the one stating is liable to be wrongly accused by them ones.

had I wrote "IT IS" ... then that is an accusation
 
Well, all you're showing is your lack of understanding english semantics. That and of course your character traits.

Tell you what, this forum also provides a good old "DIY moderation" feature: An ignore list.
 
Well, all you're showing is your lack of understanding english semantics. That and of course your character traits.

Tell you what, this forum also provides a good old "DIY moderation" feature: An ignore list.
making blank comments as if I am the only one who post there options in any forum and you telling me that is just you projecting due to your pride getting in the way. it is not my lack of understanding semantics when i commented out the term "off topic" and made a sarcastic remark as to why the sh is getting chsged to csh without ACCUSING anyone of anything has nothing to do with english semantics.

Again this is you projecting then threating to regressing to the I'll just hold my breath tatics "ignore list" perhaps you just took that remark too personally ..which would make you the one that does not understand english semantics, I repeat PERHAPS look that word up first before you go off half cocked again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top