On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:58:33AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >well, having an ENVIRONMENT section in ssh-add(1) which documents
> >SSH_ASKPASS kind of implies that it's the environment of ssh-add that is
> >being referred to too. i don;t see how you can separate one part, but
> >not the ot
On 07/21/13 11:31, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
regarding your diff... i don't know this stuff well enough to be
able to say whether your moving stuff around makes sense, and whether
you're moving it to the right place. note, for example,
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >regarding your diff... i don't know this stuff well enough to be
> >able to say whether your moving stuff around makes sense, and whether
> >you're moving it to the right place. note, for example, that
> >ssh-agent(1) now docume
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:51:25AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >
> >But, my suggestion mainly was to introduce the word "should"
> >in order to make the statement less passive, when stating what
> >is expected of the program's first output line.
>
> Well I'm not all for rfc2119 imperatives in t
On 07/21/13 11:05, Jason McIntyre wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
If so, maybe a better wording would be:
Successful confirmation is signaled by a zero exit status,
and the first line of the pr
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> >
> > If so, maybe a better wording would be:
> >
> > Successful confirmation is signaled by a zero exit status,
> > and the first line of the program's output SHOULD be either
On 07/21/13 10:07, patrick keshishian wrote:
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
However, the sentence still reads awkwardly. Are you trying to
say the requirement is:
if (an_exit_status == 0 &&
(out
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:15:00AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Couple of comments inline.
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 03:16:28AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> >> This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regardin
On 07/21/13 08:11, patrick keshishian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Couple of comments inline.
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 03:16:28AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
>> This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regarding
>> SSH_ASKPASS, when used for ssh-agent key confirmation.
>>
>> The point I'
Hi,
Couple of comments inline.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 03:16:28AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote:
> This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regarding
> SSH_ASKPASS, when used for ssh-agent key confirmation.
>
> The point I'm making is that the relevant SSH_ASKPASS environment
> va
This is an attempt to make the ssh-* man pages more exact regarding
SSH_ASKPASS, when used for ssh-agent key confirmation.
The point I'm making is that the relevant SSH_ASKPASS environment
variable is not that of ssh-add(1) (apart from when ssh-add is actually
asking for a passphrase).
On a siden
11 matches
Mail list logo
