Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:27:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Neil McGovern writes ("Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]"):
> > As far as I'm aware, we don't actually say that anywhere. Applications can
> > only /rely/ on those interfaces, but it's certainly possible for an
> > application to have a Depends: on a particular shell.
>
> You can have more than one shell. In fact you can have as many as you
> like.
>
> We do *not* allow applications to require a particular shell
> *to be /bin/sh*.
>
Indeed, but we do allow applications to rely on other particular things
to be running, such as the kernel, or the bootloader. That said, I think
we're moving off the point, which is that the extension of the sh bit of
policy to this GR is one I don't think can be relied on.
Neil
Reply to: