* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 10:37]: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]: > > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]: > > > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell. > > > > > > > > I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities > > > > than just /bin/bash. > > > > > > So can we just decide what the possibilities are and then put those in > > > Policy and be done with it? > > > > No, because policy doesn't work that way. > > > > There is no reason to restrict us to a list of shells - there is a > > reason to restrict us to a list of features. > > There is one big reason to restrict us to a list of shells, namely > quality assurance. It is possible to check that scripts work when > /bin/sh point to any shell mentionned in a list, but it is not possible > to check reliably whether they follow a given specification.
Fair comment. I think it would be good if we do for QA reasons some definition which shells we think follow that standard - that could be a footnote in the policy, something in developers-reference, or anywhere else. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
