On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +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. > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell" > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and
Could you just stop spreading this debconf example, it's utterly wrong. Thanks Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
