Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 12:33 AM Debian Bug Tracking System < ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> Your message dated Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:28:34 -0700 > with message-id <87jzsyzm6l....@hope.eyrie.org> > and subject line Re: Bug#991984: Please document minimal environment > variable needed for sensible-utils > has caused the Debian Bug report #991984, > regarding Please document minimal environment variable needed for > sensible-utils > to be marked as done. > > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. > > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this > message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system > misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org > immediately.) > > > -- > 991984: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=991984 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Bastien Roucariès" <roucaries.bast...@gmail.com> > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 14:57:38 +0000 > Subject: Please document minimal environment variable needed for > sensible-utils > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.5.1.0 > Severity: important > Control: block 991982 by -1 > Control: block 987675 by -1 > > > Dear Maintainer, > > For now $env -i sensible-utils, fail due to $HOME and $TERM not set. > > I am for now working around HOME not set in sensible-utils core, but posix > [1] > documentation does not document really the value that should be set for a > correct behavior of program. > > Nevertheless: > - we should expect that PATH is set to a sensible value (note that it > depends > of the shell), but nevertheless not setting PATH is not really safe > - HOME may not be set. If set the value may be incorrect (su -) > - TERM may not be set. If set the value may not be correct > - USER may not be set. If set the value may be incorrect (su -) > > So I will like to have a footnote saying that > sensible-pager/sensible-editor > etc, should test if they work under env -i, and if they do not work > fallback to > return 126 (according to shell documentation Command invoked cannot > execute), > thus allowing sensible-utils to fallback to vi that is safe and tested > under > env -i > > Bastien > > > > > [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> > To: "Bastien Roucariès" <roucaries.bast...@gmail.com> > Cc: 991984-d...@bugs.debian.org > Bcc: > Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2023 21:28:34 -0700 > Subject: Re: Bug#991984: Please document minimal environment variable > needed for sensible-utils > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > > Policy does not mandate any specific behavior for sensible-editor and > > sensible-pager other than that they will implement the EDITOR and PAGER > > environment variable checking for you. I think that's best left to the > > maintainer of those programs to decide. > > > We also don't expect that the editor or pager invoked following the > > rules in Policy 11.4 (and, by extension, sensible-editor and > > sensible-pager themselves) will work in unusual situations, such as ones > > without standard environment variables set. We can't: the user is free > > to set EDITOR and PAGER to anything they chose, including programs not > > in Debian. So you can't really expect any particular behavior from > > whatever EDITOR or PAGER is set to. Maybe it will fail with a helpful > > error code, maybe it will start and not work but not exit, maybe > > something else entirely will happen. This is really outside of our > > control. > > There was no further discussion of this over the past year, so I'm going > to go ahead and close this bug with the above comment. > > -- > Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
