Re: Removing shar(1)

> On 12/18/24 05:04, Robert Clausecker wrote:
> > Hi Kyle,
> > 
> > With shar no longer being recommended for the submission of new ports,
> > I see no objection to removing this feature.  However, tar(1) should
> > keep the functionality.
> > 
> 
> I make no proposal to remove it from tar- that'd be really annoying 
> after recommending people use tar(1) instead both here and in the patch 
> below.

Isnt this a bit oxy-moronic?  Remove shar, yet point people to the exact
same behavior in another binary shipped with the system?  Your basically
leaving the foot shooting neck hanging rope in the system and doing zip
to remove the fact this fucntionality should NOT be removed.

Your basically breaking things without any increase in security.

FIRM NO here.

> 
> > We should consider replacing shar(1) by an implementation that just calls
> > into tar(1) to do its job.
> > 
> 
> Strongly prefer not to if we can avoid it (I'm not seeing any arguments 
> that we really need it to be a first-class citizen); I view that as 
> promoting functionality that we shouldn't be encouraging, along with 
> providing a manpage.

Basically your just making it inconvinvient to get to the rope for those
that do know how to not hang themselves.


-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 [email protected]