On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:45:07 +0200, Martin Schulze said:
> Err... since it's easy to call isatty() on the input stream to find out
Sure, but what other tool works like this? There are zillion ways to
shoot oneself into the foot; tinkering with the permissions is just one.
> if there's an inode
Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, July 12, 2005 12:33, Werner Koch wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:37:41 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst said:
> >
> >> version of GnuPG in Debian (1.4.1-1). I'm wondering what the stance of
> >> upstream is on this bug: will or won't it be fixed?
> >
> > I don't see the pro
On Tue, July 12, 2005 12:33, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:37:41 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst said:
>
>> version of GnuPG in Debian (1.4.1-1). I'm wondering what the stance of
>> upstream is on this bug: will or won't it be fixed?
>
> I don't see the problem with this. In same cases we coul
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:37:41 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst said:
> version of GnuPG in Debian (1.4.1-1). I'm wondering what the stance of
> upstream is on this bug: will or won't it be fixed?
I don't see the problem with this. In same cases we could create a
file with the same permissions as the source
Hello,
I'm looking into really old Debian bugs to see what their status is.
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:35:33 +0200 (CEST), Martin Schulze wrote:
> Package: gnupg
> Version: 1.0.0-1
>
> Please see the following transcript. A file with mode 0600 is signed
> using GnuPG and the resulting file has mode
5 matches
Mail list logo
