Bug#267142: debian-policy: Sections 10.4 and 6.1 are inconsistent (Posix doesn't say what you think it says)

[Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:28:00PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I believe there are four reasonable sorts of policy amendment that
> would solve this problem:
> 
>   OPTION 1: Change 10.4 to require that scripts never use /bin/sh.
> 
>   OPTION 2: Restrict /bin/sh to a specified list of shells, rather
>   than "any POSIX compatible shell", and require that shell scripts
>   run correctly on that list.
> 
>   OPTION 3: Extend 10.4 to require the use only of Posix features not
>   only for the shell, but for a specified list of other commands; that
>   list would be based upon which commands are in fact being built-in
>   by shells like dash in ways which are inconsistent with the binaries
>   in /usr/bin.
> 
>   OPTION 4: Change section 10.4 to require the use of full pathnames
>   for everything which is not ordered by Posix to be builtin to the
>   shell; remove the "no pathnames on commands" direction in section
>   6.1.  

There's also,

OPTION 5: Change section 10.4 to require the use of full pathnames when
non-Posix extensions are being used in commands; remove the "no
pathnames on commands" direction in section 6.1, but do discourage its
use whenever possible.

> I strongly prefer option 2.  Options 1 and 3 seem ok to me, with a
> slight preference for option 1 because it is more maintainable.
> Option 4 is horrible, and you don't need me to say why.

Indeed. However, I think option 5 is, at least, worth considering, even
if it's hard to implement. Your thought?

-- 
         EARTH
     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
         WATER
 -- with thanks to fortune