On 11/25/2015 01:24 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Ruediger Meier <sweet_f_a@xxxxxx> wrote:
Personally I think it's hard enough to write POSIX compatible shell
scripts and I wouldn't start to add such hacks for fish and tcsh.
Next week somebody may complain that his "shell" does not
support "exec ...".
Making things work for more people, when it doesn't introduce a
security risk or break other tools, seems very reasonable. And there
are people out there who who do use both fish and tcsh.
What seems to be missing in the patch is a comment line, above the
stanza, explaining why the code uses "exec". It's great to be clever
and solve a problem, but it boosts your pay and makes people who
follow in your role hate you a lot less if they can understand why you
chose a particular solution.
Currently, it is the only solution we have and works for conventional
shells as well as for fish and tcsh. Maybe there are other solutions,
better or worse. I am no expert on different shells and their
compatibility, so I just shared what we actually use across our systems
for some time and which works for us, so other interested can benefit
from it. I am not forcing anyone to use it.
I completely agree that there should be some wider reasoning behind
every change. But here we have just "experience" with larger subset of
shells used these days.
Regards,
--
Jakub Jelen
Associate Software Engineer
Security Technologies
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
openssh-unix-dev mailing list
openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
