[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 ?


Reply to: