From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261162AbUBVW55 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:57:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261188AbUBVW54 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:57:56 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:13442 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261162AbUBVW5z (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:57:55 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:57:50 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Paul Jackson Cc: Hansjoerg Lipp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6: shebang handling in fs/binfmt_script.c Message-ID: <20040222225750.GA27402@mail.shareable.org> References: <20040216133418.GA4399@hobbes> <20040222020911.2c8ea5c6.pj@sgi.com> <20040222155410.GA3051@hobbes> <20040222125312.11749dfd.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040222125312.11749dfd.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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