[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch] Support UTF-8 scripts
On Po 19-09-05 09:18:33, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Why is binfmt_misc not enough for you?
> For two reasons: for one, it has the overhead of yet another
> exec call. This is different from usages for, say, Java byte
> code or Python byte code, where the registered interpreter already
> is the eventual binary which has to be invoked anyway; for
> a binfmt_misc application, you need an additional wrapper
> which reinterprets the first line, and then invokes the eventual
> interpreter.

Who cares? exec is fast.

> The other reason is availability: as an author of an UTF-8
> script, you would have to communicate to your users that they
> need the right binfmt_misc wrapper installed (which they may
> have to build first). While installing additional stuff to
> run a single program is acceptable for large applications,
> it is likely not for script files. To make the feature useful
> in practice, it must be builtin.

This is distribution problem, not kernel problem. "/bin/ls should be
built into kernel, because otherwise you can't call /bin/ls from
script" is not an argument.

If UTF-8 compatibility is important, distros will get it right. If it
is not, you loose, but at least kernel is not messed up.

if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
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: 2005-09-19 09:27    [W:0.041 / U:3.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site