Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
#include <hallo.h>
* Gabor Gombas [Wed, Nov 15 2006, 12:05:46AM]:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:03:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > What problem exactly are you trying to solve? We have a
> > working OS now, and have had one for over a decade; and we have been
> > using bash all along. Reading what you say leads one to imagine all
> > kinds of dire prolems that would be the case if one were to use
> > bash -- but we have been using bash for all this while.
> >
> > So again? What is the problem you see make bash unacceptable
> > here?
>
> It's not bash that is unacceptable. It's restricting Debian to bash
> _only_ that is unacceptable.
>
> You mentioned different shells shadowing different utilities. But thanks
> to the "enable" command, that's true for two bash scripts as well -
> looking at an "if test ... then ..." construct in a #!/bin/bash script
> you never know whether that "test" command will invoke the bash builtin
Where is your argument? Manoj asks you about facts and you answer with
"can break". Everything can break if the local admin _wants_ th shoot
herself in the food.
Following your argumentation, I would assume that we all have to switch
to "trusted" (restricted) hardware and non-free OSes. Why? Because a hex
editor could be used to modify the behaviour of every program with
a sufficient level of idioticy.
> There are probably a lot of other areas where such tricks could be used.
> Thanks to the "enable" command, you can even turn bash into a (much more
> bloated) busybox.
So? A good counter-argument for the "USE /BIN/BASH IF YOU USE TEST -A"
party. /bin/bash is not what maintainers expect after that.
Please stop this pointless thread now and stop wasting our time.
Eduard.
--
Der Abscheu vor dem Bürger ist bürgerlich.
-- Jules Renard (Ideen, in Tinte getaucht)
Reply to: