Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +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.
>
> 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
Reply to: