Re: [debian-policy] 11.8.3 "Packages providing a terminal emulator" says xterm passes -e option straight to exec
- To: 648271@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [debian-policy] 11.8.3 "Packages providing a terminal emulator" says xterm passes -e option straight to exec
- From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 20:41:16 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20120709014116.GA13611@burratino>
- In-reply-to: <87ty4o4kvy.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
- References: <4EBB5645.1070508@gmail.com> <87mxah3hm6.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4EF637D2.3050308@gmail.com> <87obux1p6c.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4EF6DC73.8090103@gmail.com> <20111225085211.GD10805@elie.Belkin> <87ty4o4kvy.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Hi terminal emulator authors (in bcc),
There is a policy proposal to clarify what
x-terminal-emulator -e <args>
does when there is one argument and when there are many arguments.
Currently policy says:
| To be an `x-terminal-emulator', a program must:
| * Be able to emulate a DEC VT100 terminal, or a compatible
| terminal.
| * Support the command-line option `-e <command>', which creates a
| new terminal window[1] and runs the specified <command>,
| interpreting the entirety of the rest of the command line as a
| command to pass straight to exec, in the manner that `xterm'
| does.
| * Support the command-line option `-T <title>', which creates a new
| terminal window with the window title <title>.
The proposal is to amend that second bullet point:
| * Support the command-line option "-e <command> <arg>...", which
| creates a new terminal window and runs the specified command.
| The arguments passed after "-e" form the argument list to the
| executed program. In other words, the behavior is as though
| the arguments were passed directly to execvp, bypassing the
| shell. (xterm's behavior of falling back on using the shell if
| -e had a single argument and exec failed is permissible but not
| required.)
Does that look like a good change to you? (If so, you may second it.)
Any ideas for improving it? (Improvements welcome.)
Thanks,
Jonathan
Reply to: