Charles-François Natali <cf.natali <at> gmail.com> writes:
How would that sit with the current proposal? I maintain a wrapper, python-gnupg, which communicates with the GnuPG process through subprocess. Although there is no in-built use of these parameters, users are allowed to pass additional parameters to GnuPG, and they might use these esoteric GnuPG options.
Since you use subprocess, file descriptor passing to gnupg doesn't work since Subproces.Popen changed close_fds default to True (in 3.2) (which was the right decision, IMO).
That could always be overcome by passing close_fds=False explicitly to subprocess from my code, though, right? I'm not doing that now, but then I'm not using the esoteric options in python-gnupg code, either.
My point was that the GnuPG usage looked like an example where fds other than 0, 1 and 2 might be used by design in not-uncommonly-used programs. From a discussion I had with Barry Warsaw a while ago, I seem to remember that there was other software which relied on these features. See  for details.