On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Matthias Kilian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02:30AM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
>> Matthias Kilian writes:
>> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wr
On 07/21/13 23:43, Matthias Kilian wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents
potentially faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner me
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02:30AM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Matthias Kilian writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >> > I for one don't see a general interest in knowi
Matthias Kilian writes:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> > I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents
>> > potentially faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner means.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> > I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents
> > potentially faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner means.
>
> There is no way to find th
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents
> potentially faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner means.
All shells (including our pdksh) seem to do this already, but also
peek at PWD in the environment at sta
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:01:33PM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents
> potentially faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner means.
There is no way to find the logical path without help from the shell.
Joerg
> I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents potentially
> faked wd.
Many things can be faked by the parent. One could check if getcwd() and
getenv("PWD") resolves to the same directory if this is a concern.
Based on the fact that other shells have a different behavior I was c
I for one don't see a general interest in knowing ones parents potentially
faked wd. You can find out your wd by saner means.
/Alexander
Bertrand Janin wrote:
>PWD is considered local in /bin/ksh while it is global in most other
>shells
>(ksh93, csh, bash, zsh).
>
>In practice, it means calling
PWD is considered local in /bin/ksh while it is global in most other shells
(ksh93, csh, bash, zsh).
In practice, it means calling getenv("PWD") from a child process returns NULL
on ksh (and pdksh) unless you export it before hand.
I discovered this while using getenv("PWD") to get the parent she
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:58:33AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >well, having an ENVIRONMENT section in ssh-add(1) which documents
> >SSH_ASKPASS kind of implies that it's the environment of ssh-add that is
> >being referred to too. i don;t see how you can separate one part, but
> >not the ot
On 07/21/13 11:31, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
regarding your diff... i don't know this stuff well enough to be
able to say whether your moving stuff around makes sense, and whether
you're moving it to the right place. note, for example,
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >regarding your diff... i don't know this stuff well enough to be
> >able to say whether your moving stuff around makes sense, and whether
> >you're moving it to the right place. note, for example, that
> >ssh-agent(1) now docume
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:25AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >But, my suggestion mainly was to introduce the word "should"
> >in order to make the statement less passive, when stating what
> >is expected of the program's first output line.
>
> Well I'm not all for rfc2119 imperatives in t
On 07/21/13 11:05, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
If so, maybe a better wording would be:
Successful confirmation is signaled by a zero exit status,
and the first line of the pr
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >
> > If so, maybe a better wording would be:
> >
> > Successful confirmation is signaled by a zero exit status,
> > and the first line of the program's output SHOULD be either
On 07/21/13 10:07, patrick keshishian wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
However, the sentence still reads awkwardly. Are you trying to
say the requirement is:
if (an_exit_status == 0 &&
(out
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Couple of comments inline.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 03:16:28AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >> This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regardin
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Couple of comments inline.
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 03:16:28AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regarding
>> SSH_ASKPASS, when used for ssh-agent key confirmation.
>>
>> The point I'
19 matches
Mail list logo
