On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 22:28 Tobias Girstmair wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:15:24PM +0100, Allan Odgaard wrote:
> > I don’t know what the above is, but that does not use `eval` and it
>
> apologies for the noise; it does indeed say 'exec' and not 'eval'.
>
> as to not make this message a
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:15:24PM +0100, Allan Odgaard wrote:
I don’t know what the above is, but that does not use `eval` and it
apologies for the noise; it does indeed say 'exec' and not 'eval'.
as to not make this message a complete waste: I've peeked at github's code
search and googled
On 28 Nov 2019, at 22:00, Tobias Girstmair wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:51:42AM +1300, martin f. krafft wrote:
That's all I have in /usr/bin here ;)
I've got /usr/bin/i3-sensible-editor and it _does_ eval it (not that i
have a strong opinion on this topic):
for editor in "$VISUAL"
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 09:51:42AM +1300, martin f. krafft wrote:
That's all I have in /usr/bin here ;)
I've got /usr/bin/i3-sensible-editor and it _does_ eval it (not that i
have a strong opinion on this topic):
for editor in "$VISUAL" "$EDITOR" nano nvim vim vi emacs pico qe mg jed
Regarding the following, written by "Jason A. Donenfeld" on 2019-11-28 at 21:25
Uhr +0100:
I *don't* agree that it's too risky. Rather, I'm
interested in learning if there's precedent for the
change before we make it. Can you research how EDITOR is
handled elsewhere, please?
Debian's
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 19:44 martin f. krafft wrote:
> Regarding the following, written by "Kjetil Torgrim Homme" on 2019-11-28
> at 13:11 Uhr +0100:
>
> I would write a trivial wrapper ~/bin/vimsecure and use that as my
> $EDITOR, or even simpler, use EDITOR=vi :)
>
> Yeah, I can do that
Regarding the following, written by "Kjetil Torgrim Homme" on 2019-11-28 at
13:11 Uhr +0100:
I would write a trivial wrapper ~/bin/vimsecure and use that as my
$EDITOR, or even simpler, use EDITOR=vi :)
Yeah, I can do that instead. I agree that my patch may be too risky.
Best,
--
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 1:12 PM Kjetil Torgrim Homme
wrote:
>
> Den 28.11.2019 12:14, skreiv Jason A. Donenfeld:
> > Do you have any other examples of EDITOR being eval'd in this manner?
> >
>
> I agree with your skepticism. It is best if pass(1) handles $EDITOR
> like other scripts, I'm wary of
Den 28.11.2019 12:14, skreiv Jason A. Donenfeld:
> Do you have any other examples of EDITOR being eval'd in this manner?
>
I agree with your skepticism. It is best if pass(1) handles $EDITOR
like other scripts, I'm wary of breaking other people's setup.
I would write a trivial wrapper
Do you have any other examples of EDITOR being eval'd in this manner?
___
Password-Store mailing list
Password-Store@lists.zx2c4.com
https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/password-store
e@lists.zx2c4.com
Cc: "martin f. krafft"
Subject: [PATCH] Use eval() to shell-parse $EDITOR for
pass-edit
Message-Id: <20190812052123.21737-1-madd...@madduck.net>
X-Spam: no (crm114:16.49 SA:-102.1)
X-Justme: from machine in my domain
Enables shell-parsing of $EDITOR when execu
Enables shell-parsing of $EDITOR when executing its contents on
temporary files during `pass edit`.
Previously, trying to invoke e.g. vim with a set of commands, such as
```
vim -c 'set nostmp'
```
would result in `pass` calling
```
execve("/usr/bin/vim", ["vim", "-c", "'set", "nostmp'",
12 matches
Mail list logo
