Changing user login shell to new bash release

[Khan Smith]

   Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 3:10 AM
   From: "Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev" <fxmbsw7@gmail.com>
   To: "Khan Smith" <khansmith@mail.com>
   Cc: "Kerin Millar" <kfm@plushkava.net>, "help-bash" <help-bash@gnu.org>
   Subject: Re: Changing user login shell to new bash release
   i was asking recently the same
   chet said its a valid way, but yet i couldnt manage it i think, to make
   it
   work not sure
   you just need to copy the bash binary, i mean would be enuff


   Would be beneficial if Chet could give his point of view, because
   currently I favour
   adding /usr/local/bin/bash to the /etc/shells followed by "chsh -s
   /usr/local/bin/bash".

   I am hesitant in case I do even worse than you.

   On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, 05:01 Khan Smith <khansmith@mail.com> wrote:
   >
   > There is the option of building bash 5.1.8 from the compiled bash
   with
   > PREFIX set to "/". How would
   > you comment on such approach?
   >
   > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 2:39 AM
   > *From:* "Kerin Millar" <kfm@plushkava.net>
   > *To:* "Khan Smith" <khansmith@mail.com>
   > *Cc:* "Alex fxmbsw7 Ratchev" <fxmbsw7@gmail.com>, "help-bash" <
   > help-bash@gnu.org>
   > *Subject:* Re: Changing user login shell to new bash release
   > On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 04:34:46 +0200
   > Khan Smith <khansmith@mail.com> wrote:
   >
   > >
   > > If I source my scripts (my scripts having #!/usr/local/bin/bash)
   from
   > > my .bashrc, would that
   > > be good enough? I only need version 5 for some small things in one
   of
   > > my scripts.
   >
   > No, it wouldn't. The documented behaviour of source is to "read and
   > execute commands from FILENAME in the current shell". Anyway, the
   procedure
   > that you described in the initial post is valid.
   >
   > --
   > Kerin Millar
   >