Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: \"special\" shells a security hole?
Message-ID: <13595@sun.uucp>
Date: Wed, 18-Feb-87 20:36:10 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.13595
Posted: Wed Feb 18 20:36:10 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 03:08:45 EST
References: <3953@brl-adm.ARPA> <2590002@hpisod2.HP> <3037@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <177@quacky.mips.UUCP> <1684@druhi.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 19

>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:

Well, maybe it would, but why should it be *necessary*?  I can think
of a lot of changes to the shell, say, that might be nice to make,
but would require something like this to be done.

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

No, it wouldn't be a good idea; the good idea would be to tell "make"
not to import SHELL from the environment!

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

Fine, just have "make" use the Bourne shell by default, as it did
before S3.