[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script's interpreter doesn't exist.
> NAK. Current behaviour is useful -- and it is really file thats
> missing.

The current behavior is only useful to people who have an understanding of
how interpreters and binaries work on Linux. The average desktop user
does not have that understanding. The average user gets an error message
such as:

/usr/bin/foo: No such file or directory.

They then go and look at /usr/bin/foo, find that it exists, and are
extremely confused.

More advanced users might at that point try and run "ldd" on the binary
(which will also fail, thanks to a missing interpreter). The average user
will never think to run "strings" on the binary and look for

> Please improve manpage instead.

What manpage do you suggest needs improvement? execve(2)? That again
requires an average user to realize that they need to go look at the
execve(2) manpage. The average user is not going to realize that.


Jonathan Reed
Faculty and Student Experience
Information Services & Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-30 19:11    [W:0.333 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site