lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Java and the FSSTND
Date
From: Kevin M Bealer <kmb203@psu.edu>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Daniel S. Barclay wrote:
>
> > Scripts shouldn't have to have an absolute name there; it should be
> > indirectable, so the script doesn't depend on where the interpreter
> > is located (so the script will work on system with the interpreter in a
> > different place).
> >
> > How about something like this:
> > - Intrepret the name after "#!" as a command to be looked up as a normal
> > command.
> > - If it's an absolute name (starting with a slash), it works the
> > same way as it does now.
> > - If it's a simple name (no slashes), it gets looked up via the
> > PATH environment variable (or whatever is appropriate
> > considering security issues).
> > - If it's a relative name (slashes, but no leading slash), it
> > get looks up relative to the current directory (or
> > whatever is needed for security).
> > - If it ever became necessary, the kernel (or whatever) could look up
> > simple names are map them to interpreter pathnames using
> > whatever mapping mechanism we wanted.
>
> Maybe _I'm_ out of context, but what does this get you?
>
> Most of the scripts on my system usr /bin/sh ... I can link that to any
> binary on my system.
>
> For what application is this useful?

Although /bin/sh is standard, many interpreters are not.
What about wish, perl, and some_new_thing? It could be in /bin,
/usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/share/bin, /opt/bin, /usr/gnu/bin,
/our_system/bin/linux, ~/bin, ~/bin/linux, or whatever.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.041 / U:3.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site