Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would rather get away from this wording totally. > ,---- > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX > | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n .... . Also, > | they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions, > | as long as .... If a shell script uses features beyond this set > | listed, then the appropriate shell must be specified in the first > | line of the script (e.g., #!/bin/bash) and the package must depend on > | the package providing the shell (unless the shell package is marked > | "Essential", as in the case of bash). " > `----
> This does specify what the scripts may expect, but drops all > wording from this section regarding what the policy expectation of > /bin/sh is. Yeah, that was the direction I was going to try to go with my next revision. Thank you! I'll probably nab that wording pretty much as-is and try to put together a patch. (I've almost finished the PAM module work that I needed to do, and in another day or two I should have a fix for the libpam-openafs-session bugs that I need to go upgrade to RC.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
