Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6: shebang handling in fs/binfmt_script.c

[Jamie Lokier]

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
argument.

> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/