[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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

    > 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.024 / U:16.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site