Bug#31521: dpkg: dpkg dying in eterm

[Klaus Weide <kweide@tezcat.com>]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> I know what is causing dpkg to misbehave and it's this
> SIGPIPE problem.  That's not dpkg's fault.

Pardon me, but it seems to me that if dpkg needs SIGPIPE non-ignored
to function properly, then it is up to dpkg to make it so.  Which
should be very simple to do.  Or is there ever a reason to honor a
parent process's SIG_IGN for SIGPIPE?

Is there something that support the claim that it is a bug if program A
fork/execs program B with SIGPIPE ignored?  For example some Unix specs,
or a Debian policy doc?

    Klaus