Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Matthias.Beier.Gronau@gmx.de (Matthias.Beier.Gronau@gmx.de) [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. <ballombe@debian.org>
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.
Reply to: