[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.
On Thu 2009-07-30 13:08:58, Jonathan Reed wrote:
>> 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

Proposed behaviour is useless to everyone.

> 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.

ENOEXEC is confusing, too. It will have x bit.

>> Please improve manpage instead.
> What manpage do you suggest needs improvement? execve(2)? That

execve, I'd say.

> 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.

Improve shells to provide more helpful error message?
(cesky, pictures)

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-30 22:19    [W:0.042 / U:6.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site