From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] t9100: fix breakage when SHELL_PATH is not /bin/sh Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:56:30 -0500 Message-ID: <20160208195630.GB30693@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <982f6f499c988e1063275e2951c9856d622a83f3.1454872161.git.git@drmicha.warpmail.net> <20160208135013.GA27054@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160208163700.GA22929@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20160208193509.GA30554@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Michael J Gruber , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 08 20:56:43 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aSrvM-0001VH-TZ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 20:56:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753550AbcBHT4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:56:34 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:39414 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752617AbcBHT4d (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:56:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 14208 invoked by uid 102); 8 Feb 2016 19:56:33 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:56:33 -0500 Received: (qmail 8571 invoked by uid 107); 8 Feb 2016 19:56:34 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:56:34 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:56:30 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:43:19AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > But then what is write_script buying us? > > The correct way to write a script for a specific interpreter is to > give a second parameter to write_script, i.e. > > write_script exec.sh /bin/sh > and the answer to the question is "it will save us one line". At the cost of a useless "cat" invocation, though. :) > The version in 'master' that does > > echo "#!/bin/sh" >exec.sh && > chmod +x exec.sh && > > should be equivalent, so dropping that hunk from the patch is the > right resolution perhaps? Yeah, but I still don't understand why the original did not work on Windows, once all the other hunks from bcb11f1 are applied. -Peff