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. Given that proper operations of the scripts is often critical [1] for the system, we need to provide users with more assurance than "It is untested but should work, and you can report a bug if it does not". Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. [1] It is my strong opinion that the shell language is utterly inappropriate for that task, but it is the way Debian is setup for the time being. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
