On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:50:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:14 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > 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.
I am of two mind with that. On the positive side it removes the promise to the users that the system works with _any_ POSIX-compliant /bin/sh, which is something we never actively tested. On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is /bin/bash (because /bin/sh is not a config file, and baring policy authorization, users are not supposed to change symlinks in /bin). This looks like a regression a regression in user choice: I expect there are sufficiently many Debian installation where /bin/sh is /bin/dash for us to claim that /bin/sh pointing to /bin/dash is a supported and tested configuration. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
