Ralph wrote:
> This close to a release, I think we should stick with requiring HOME to
> be non-empty if it's set as otherwise there's too many paths to consider
> which the test harness probably doesn't exercise.
I'd rather crank out an RC3 than pass up the opportunity to solidify
the behaviour
Ralph Corderoy wrote in
<20230131181958.1cfb121...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>:
...
|But if HOME is empty we do not know their intent so to ignore it and use
|pw_dir may not be what they think will occur. The wrong profile could
|be read or the wrong .netrc used, upsetting the user.
By the way my
Date:Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:29:46 +
From:Ralph Corderoy
Message-ID: <20230131132946.44a5f20...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>
| > Similarly, in XCU 4 in the description of the cd utility:
| Yes, but also allowed there is âemptyâ which also triggers
| implementatio
Date:Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:22:19 +
From:Ralph Corderoy
Message-ID: <20230131132219.5e02b20...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>
| It looks to me like code assumes mypath isn't NULL, e.g. exmaildir(),
| so not bothering to call set_mypath() if MH is set doesn't look a goer.
Date:Tue, 31 Jan 2023 18:19:58 +
From:Ralph Corderoy
Message-ID: <20230131181958.1cfb121...@orac.inputplus.co.uk>
| No, one cannot say of an unset HOME that it may be set by accident.
No, but it may have been unset by accident, where the intended value
for mh t
Hi Ken,
> > What's the intent of an empty HOME?
> > Is it set by accident when it's meant to be unset?
> > Is it empty by accident when it's meant to be non-empty?
> > Do they want HOME=/, HOME=$PWD, or are they expecting it to error.
> > Any choice could be not what the user intended so exit.
>
>
>What's the intent of an empty HOME?
>Is it set by accident when it's meant to be unset?
>Is it empty by accident when it's meant to be non-empty?
>Do they want HOME=/, HOME=$PWD, or are they expecting it to error.
>Any choice could be not what the user intended so exit.
I mean ... you could say t
On Jan 31, 2023, at 8:32 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> Hi Ken,
>
>>> So an unset HOME is allowed by this function, it's an empty HOME
>>> which isn't.
>>
>> It strikes me as strange that there is a difference between an unset
>> HOME and an empty HOME in terms of behavior. I mean, yes, I can s
Hi Ken,
> > So an unset HOME is allowed by this function, it's an empty HOME
> > which isn't.
>
> It strikes me as strange that there is a difference between an unset
> HOME and an empty HOME in terms of behavior. I mean, yes, I can see
> how the code is written, the historical precedent and how
>So an unset HOME is allowed by this function, it's an empty HOME which
>isn't.
It strikes me as strange that there is a difference between an unset
HOME and an empty HOME in terms of behavior. I mean, yes, I can see how
the code is written, the historical precedent and how we got here, but
... w
Hi kre,
Thanks for your learned input on this. As I said in another reply just
now, where I listed set_mypath(), HOME being unset is fine as getpwuid()
is the fallback in which case pw_dir must be non-empty.
> > Alexander does point out that HOME is supposed to be valid according
> > to POSIX,
>
Hi az,
> "Author: Ralph Corderoy
> Date: Thu May 13 13:46:20 2021 +0100
>
> sbr/path.c: add set_mypath() to factor out repeated code."
I think it's worth expanding on that.
commit d8ca46fabc26469be325b73a73dcc26e70681eb5
Author: Ralph Corderoy
Date: Thu May 13 13:46:20 2021 +01
Hi David,
> I'd like to get Ralph's take on what we should do.
Thanks. If my suggestion to Stephen of unsetting HOME works and is
acceptable to him then I suggest we don't change nmh for this release.
> > A further documentation issue: mh-profile(5) does not specify the
> > treatment of a relat
Hi Stephen,
> I have investigated the failure of the xlbiff tests with nmh 1.8RC2.
Thanks.
> $ printf 'Path: /tmp\n' > /tmp/mh-profile-minimal
> $ HOME= MH=/tmp/mh-profile-minimal /usr/bin/mh/mhparam path
My suggestion for a quick fix to try is to not have HOME in the
environment so getpwuid(3)
14 matches
Mail list logo