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'm making is that the relevant SSH_ASKPASS environment
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'm making is
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 regarding
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
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 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
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 the man
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 documents
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
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 other.
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
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 b...@janin.com wrote:
PWD is considered local in /bin/ksh while it is global in most other
shells
(ksh93, csh, bash, zsh).
In practice, it
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
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
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
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 the
Matthias Kilian k...@outback.escape.de 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
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
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Matthias Kilian k...@outback.escape.de wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02:30AM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Matthias Kilian k...@outback.escape.de writes:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at
19 matches
Mail list logo
