Hi! On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:03:32PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote: > a patch was included in the 4.0.3-36 release, but this one breaks some > scripts (see #317264).
Yes, but really those scripts are buggy, not new su. > Thus, I'm considering to revert this patch and fix your bug by documenting > the su behavior in its man page. Please, don't do this, because it will make our su different from the rest of Unix world. (see e.g. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=su or http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5166/6mbb1kqhg?a=view) > Here are some details on the issues introduced by the patch: > > * arguments are no more concatenated to provide only one string to the -c > option of the shell: Right behaviour. > * -c is no more provided to the shell when it is not provided to su: Again, absolutely correct behaviour. > This break invocation of su like: > $ su $LOGNAME bash And what should this mean? `su luser bash -i`? or `su luser bash -c`? ;) > As the old behaviors are assumed by some packages (at least pbuilder, > and probably others), Those are buggy and just need to be fixes ASAP. > I think it is better to revert the patch, and just > document the fact that -c is always provided to the invoked shell Return to broken state and explicitly document that Debian has broken su? Please, don't do this! > Do you agree with this? I guess that Helmut will disagree. -- WBR, xrgtn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
