Warning: chmod(): Operation not permitted in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-content/plugins/simple-universal-google-analytics/main.php on line 8
[0] in function chmod in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-content/plugins/simple-universal-google-analytics/main.php on line 8
[1] in function include_once in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-settings.php on line 560
[2] in function require_once in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-config.php on line 85
[3] in function require_once in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-load.php on line 50
[4] in function require_once in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/wp-blog-header.php on line 13
[5] in function require in /var/www/hopeinstoughton_www/index.php on line 17

/etc/shells micropolicy

The expected audience of this is debian developers packaging programs
meant to be used as login shells.

/etc/shells is no longer a config file, but is maintained by the
add-shell, remove-shell and update-shells programs.  So, if a
package contains something that the maintainer thinks ought to be a
valid login shell, it can have its shell included in two different way.

By placing a fragment in /usr/share/debianutils/shells.d/<binarypackage>,
it will invoke a file trigger on debian-utils and invoke update-shells,
which will add and remove the contained shells from /etc/shells as
needed.

Alternatively, it's postinst should, (on initial install only, to allow a
sysadmin to take it out again), run:

/usr/sbin/add-shell /path/to/shell

In the postrm, probably on remove, the package should call

/usr/sbin/remove-shell /path/to/shell

The latter method has the disadvantage of shells disappearing from /etc/shells
when the relevant package is removed but not purged and then reinstalled. The
fragment method does not suffer from this limitation.