On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 20:11 -0600, Brent Smith wrote: > Fernando Herrera wrote: > > On 6/18/06, Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> This sounds like a very good idea. But could you give more details? > >> What does the --include option accept? A string, file name, ...? I > >> rather pass information through a pipe, really, anything else is bound > >> to reach either a cmdline length limit, or force you to create a > >> temporary file (if done wrong we'll be seeing those security fixes due > >> to bad tmpfile handling in a few months). > > > > --include points to a filename including the trace. You have also a > > --kill <pid> command (not working yet) to get your application killed > > by bug-buddy after the bug report. > > > > I guess that getting a trace in python on mono is not as expensive as > > the gdb thing, so there would not be a big delay after the crash and > > the bug-buddy interface coming up. But if we have a big delay we could > > use instead a named pipe to feed the trace over it, so the bindings > > can call bug-buddy inmidiately and then getting/feeding the trace > > while bug-buddy shows the progress bar. > > > > What if bug-buddy accepted input from stdin with "--include -"? Then > the caller could use g_spawn_async_with_pipes().
Sounds good. > > Any security implications there? None that I can see. -- Gustavo Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> INESC Porto _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
