Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > I think it would be reasonable to state that the raise(SIGSTOP) > integration should be done with a new command line option OR a new > environment variable; ie that the daemon should not be changed to > raise(SIGSTOP) by default.
Agreed. > I don't know whether it's valuable to mention this explicitly. > If there is any significant risk that anyone might patch a daemon to > SIGSTOP by default then I would want to put something in the resolution > or in policy to suggest not to do that! Would anyone really be so > daft ? I think this falls under Manoj's old saying that it's not the role of Policy to rule out all possible bugs. That's such an obviously wrong thing to do that I'm not sure we really need to say it, although there's no harm in saying it, I suppose. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
