On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]: > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [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 nod and say "we only mean sensible ordinary shells": so then, well, say that?! Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
