Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM, David Golden <xdg@xdg.me> wrote: > Meant for list? Yes. > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jan Dubois <jand@activestate.com> wrote: >> To me the only "issue" is that the person running perl might not be >> the one who built and installed a perl without taint support. > > /me shrugs. That's a "blame the sysadmin" situation as far as I'm > concerned. What if the sysadmin compiled out threads? Or PerlIO? Or > some equally bizarro thing? Or just compiled 32 bit on a 64 bit > machine? All the other configuration changes have some visible breakage. Missing taint support however is simply a missing safety net that you assume is there, but don't expect to use. But when you need it, it is too late to discover that it was missing. >> How about adding an environment variable that tells the taint-less >> perl that it is ok to ignore -t/-T? > > That's a great compromise, since it would only have effect when > command line options are processed. Easy to set for module > installation and leave *unset* for day-to-day operation, if so > desired. Cheers, -JanThread Previous | Thread Next