A bug of what though? He, in fact, did say it was a bug of the
application, but because he felt the documentation was incomplete.
" All the more without an encoding which depends on where the file
actually lies.
Sounds like a bug to me - the escaping for the remote shell is not being
done correctly?"
He's not referring to the documentation as the bug, but rather the
application itself, but he derived that from his problem with the
documentation.
If the bug is in the documentation, fine... but address it as such, not
as an accusation of the application itself (which others have
subsequently proven works correctly for what he was attempting to
achieve.)
I'm done splitting hairs,
danno
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf
Of Matthew R. Dempsky
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:59 AM
To: OpenBSD
Subject: Re: scp problem with remote filename escaping
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 10:44:52AM -0400, Dan Farrell wrote:
simply
``incorrect documentation is a bug''
--http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-culture.pdf
He never said it was the application's fault, just that `file1',
`file2', ... are shell expanded by the remote host, but the
documentation does not point this out.
How about something like below? (I don't love the wording, but
hopefully it's a start.)
Index: scp.1
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/ssh/scp.1,v
retrieving revision 1.40
diff -u -r1.40 scp.1
--- scp.1 18 Jul 2006 07:56:28 -0000 1.40
+++ scp.1 12 Apr 2007 15:47:32 -0000
@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@
.Pp
Any file name may contain a host and user specification to indicate
that the file is to be copied to/from that host.
+The file name component of such an argument is also passed
+to the specified host's login shell for expansion and splitting.
Copies between two remote hosts are permitted.
.Pp
The options are as follows:
