Charles-François Natali <cf.natali <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > How would that sit with the current proposal? I maintain a wrapper, > > python-gnupg, > > which communicates with the GnuPG process through subprocess. Although there > > is > > no in-built use of these parameters, users are allowed to pass additional > > parameters to GnuPG, and they might use these esoteric GnuPG options. > > Since you use subprocess, file descriptor passing to gnupg doesn't > work since Subproces.Popen changed close_fds default to True (in 3.2) > (which was the right decision, IMO).
That could always be overcome by passing close_fds=False explicitly to subprocess from my code, though, right? I'm not doing that now, but then I'm not using the esoteric options in python-gnupg code, either. My point was that the GnuPG usage looked like an example where fds other than 0, 1 and 2 might be used by design in not-uncommonly-used programs. From a discussion I had with Barry Warsaw a while ago, I seem to remember that there was other software which relied on these features. See [1] for details. Regards, Vinay Sajip [1] https://code.google.com/p/python-gnupg/issues/detail?id=46 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
