Bug#31521: dpkg: dpkg dying in eterm
Klaus Weide writes ("Bug#31521: dpkg: dpkg dying in eterm"):
> 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?
There might be. The main point is that a program is entitled to
assume that all signal handlers start in the default state.
> 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?
How about ANSI C ?