On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 06:58:15PM +0100, Sami Kerola wrote: > On 9 August 2015 at 18:19, Santiago Vila <sanvila@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 07:14:30PM +0200, Reuti wrote: > >> The profile is usually sourced. How does the error show up at the login prompt on Debian? > > > > The problem only happens in Debian testing and unstable, which I am not using yet. > > This is the original report which I received against base-files: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/794727 > > Please notice the mesg(1) exit behavior is defined in POSIX > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/mesg.html > > Unfortunately the standard does not appear to be explicit whether the > exit value should be set only when requesting write permissions > (running without arguments), or if also when setting the permissions. So if the standard is not explicit about this, there is some room for interpretation. Would not be possible to interpret the standard in a sensible way? Moreover: Would not be possible to ask for the standard to be clarified? > IMHO the reasonable thing to do is to leave the return codes as they > are to avoid breakage in existing usage. If someone needs messaging > setting not to report exit codes [...] Hmm, but who does really need message *setting* to report exit codes? They make more harm than help. As explained before, if I do "mesg y" I can reasonably think that messages will be enabled after that, and if I do "mesg n" I can reasonably think that messages will be disabled after that. I don't need an exit code for that, unless I don't trust the program to do its job, and this is why I think there is no need to interpret the standard so strictly. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
