Bug#31521: dpkg: dpkg dying in eterm
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Klaus Weide wrote:
> 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?
Well, I don't know where you'd see it written down, but in general you do
not start your program with a sequence of calls to correct any changes to
your programs environment which have been made by the parent.
The parent *may* have had a valid reason to reset something. In this
particular example, the parent had no reason to disable sigpipe in its
children, and doing so will cause any program which relies on sigpipe to
malfunction. So this seems like a bug, to me..
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: