Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:57:50 +0000 | | From | Jamie Lokier <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6: shebang handling in fs/binfmt_script.c |
| |
Paul Jackson wrote: > > BTW, which shell expects the name of the script in argv[2]? > > Which ones don't?
I believe the question was "which shell expects the name in argv[2] regardless of an options given before the name".
That rules out all the ordinary shell programs.
> The burden is on you, not me. The Bourne like shells > that I happen to try just now _do_ display syntax error messages in > shell scripts with the name of the shell script file in the error > message. Look and see how they are getting that script file name.
The standard shell programs all get the name from the first non-option argument.
> What's theoretical on one persons machine is very real and painful > on a million persons machines. Incompatible changes in documented > interfaces have a high threshold to overcome.
I'll be astonished if the change to split the arguments breaks any script which actually exists, except for the rare and convoluted possibility: where the interpreter is a C program specially written to workaround the fact that Linux doesn't split the arguments.
The backslash functionality (\t) may be more of a problem.
-- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |