\"special\" shells a security hole?

[guy at gorodish.UUCP]

>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.