From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www.sonnenberger.org (www.sonnenberger.org [92.79.50.50]) by krisdoz.my.domain (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9OJp12g000908 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:51:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from britannica.bec.de (www.sonnenberger.org [192.168.1.10]) by www.sonnenberger.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687A6667C6 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:50:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by britannica.bec.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2EE92116E60; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:51:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:51:35 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv Subject: Re: implement .so Message-ID: <20101024195135.GA1809@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv References: <20101024164057.GF20876@iris.usta.de> <20101024164945.GA25275@britannica.bec.de> <20101024172914.GH20876@iris.usta.de> <20101024173857.GA18657@britannica.bec.de> <20101024180019.GI20876@iris.usta.de> <20101024181502.GA13039@britannica.bec.de> <20101024194129.GJ20876@iris.usta.de> X-Mailinglist: mdocml-tech Reply-To: tech@mdocml.bsd.lv MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101024194129.GJ20876@iris.usta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 09:41:30PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > Besides, Marc made the point that if we want to convince people > to accept mandoc as a standard implementation for formatting > manuals, we will almost certainly need .so support anyway: > Not everyone will agree that is useless, if even among ourselves > we are not 100% sure, so we risk fruitless and distracting > discussions whether mandoc is complete or defective. As we have seen in Rostock, full .so implementation has some funny side effects, so I consider it a broken feature. I won't oppose a clean patch, we have already seen that it is straight forward to implement. > > Actually, there are a number of useful cases where you have to fix it > > up already. Consider using compressed man pages by default. > > That breaks badly with .so. > > Indeed, i don't expect we want to link against zlib. > So, such special needs would still need to be handled outside > mandoc - but only by those systems wanting them. My point is that it essentially falls apart if you want to use compressed man pages. So it really, really shouldn't be used. > >> * All people i'm asking tend to say i should not worry that > >> much about the my security concerns, maybe i'm indeed > >> excessively paranoid in that respect. > > > Allow path names relative to the current directory and with /../ > > in them. > > Hm? Sorry? > I definitely need to allow path names relative to the current dir. > That's used all over the place. > > You mean, i should *not* allow absolute path names, > and i should not allow pathnames with ../ in them? Sorry, yes. Only allow relative path names without /../ components. Joerg -- To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv