Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:44:41 +0100, Gabor Gombas <gombasg@sztaki.hu> said:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It would, at one fell swoop, solve the problem Thomas hinted at
>> before, about our specification allowing shell to randomly shadow
>> other commands on the system.
> (I missed this part in my previous mail)
> Using /bin/bash does _NOT_ solve this problem as bash allows you to
> dynamically enable, disable and re-define the built-in
> commands. Even worse, bash allows you to load a DSO and use it as a
> built-in command. Just imagine if some maintainer scripts start to
> supersede ls, sed, awk etc. this way...
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?
manoj
--
HUMAN REPLICAS are inserted into VATS of NUTRITIONAL YEAST ...
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: