"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > This seems straightforward and logical (as does the rest of the series), > but I wondered if it might be a good idea to try to interrogate the > shell for more information. The reason I mention it is that Debian > permits any shell that meets certain standards to be /bin/sh, and all > programs that invoke /bin/sh must depend on only those features. The > default is dash, but people could use bash, which is more featureful, or > posh, which is intentionally designed to provide the bare minimum > /bin/sh experience[0], among others. A value of "/bin/sh" doesn't > necessarily tell us very much on Debian (or on macOS, for that matter). Good point. Perhaps readlink(3) on it, then? lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Mar 11 2018 /bin/sh -> /bin/bash > Now, that of course does mean that we have to have some way to > distinguish between shells, and that is the hard part, so I'm completely > fine with us leaving it out until we have a good way to do it (or until > we decide we need it, which may be never). I just wanted to mention it > as a potential approach for the future. I'm happy with this series as > it stands right now. > > [0] Quite literally, in that it's supposed to be a tool for testing > compatibility with the policy requirements.
