Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would you accept a similar patch that splits out pipe-safer into its own > module instead of part of unistd-safer?
I think that'd be OK, yes. It sounds pretty straightforward, anyway.
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Would you accept a similar patch that splits out pipe-safer into its own > module instead of part of unistd-safer?
I think that'd be OK, yes. It sounds pretty straightforward, anyway.