Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!drutx!druhi!clive
From: clive@druhi.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: \"special\" shells a security hole?
Message-ID: <1684@druhi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 21:28:54 EST
Article-I.D.: druhi.1684
Posted: Tue Feb 17 21:28:54 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 22:24:27 EST
References: <3953@brl-adm.ARPA> <2590002@hpisod2.HP> <3037@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <177@quacky.mips.UUCP>
Organization: resident visitor
Lines: 26
Summary: adding SHELL= to makefiles is hard?


Probably, I don't have the gruedom to know why something like this
won't quickly 'automaintain' all those 'thousands of makefiles' to say
what their shell should be:


    find interestingdir \
	\( -name Makefile -o -name makefile -o -name \*\.mk \) (etc.) \
	-exec addshellname {} \;


    where addshellname does something like

	 echo "SHELL=/bin/sh" > /tmp/${$}
	 cat ${@} >> /tmp/${$}
	 cp /tmp/${$} ${@}
	 rm /tmp/${$}

Frankly, it would probably be a good idea all around, given the
experiences I've had with ksh, for instance, breaking makes.  
Especially on small memoried machines.  

Users should be able to use any shell; and Makefiles also, not
necessarily the same one.

Always put that line in, myself.