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? I understand the desire to describe features instead of just listing shells: that way you don't have to amend policy if a new one comes along. But really, since every shell simply *does* change a jillion details of, say, builtins, and other syntax, and since *in practice* using a non-Posix feature is harmless if every shell everyone cares about supports it, then why not do what is simplest for everyone? Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
