jjelen at redhat.com
Thu Nov 26 02:04:28 AEDT 2015
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 at gmx.de> 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.
Associate Software Engineer
More information about the openssh-unix-dev