---- On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 07:30:46 +0100 Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote ---- > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Patrick Pief <[email protected]> wrote: > > There were several times where I thought that having "exec -a" in busybox > > would > > be neat, and while "exec -a" is not POSIX it is still supported in a lot > > of > > shells (see http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/250681/117599 ). > > It can be reasonably easily implemented, but I have hard time imagining > why would you need it in real-world usage. > > Usually when people ask for something I assume they do need it > (and can imagine some scenarios). In this case, I don't see them. > > Why do you need it? >
Last time I needed it was for a wrapper script so that there would be no difference of how the process appears in `ps` which some 3rd party scripts uses to check whether the specific program is running. As a workaround I simply put the original executable in a subfolder and then did a ´exec´, but with ´exec -a´ I could've simply renamed it. And the case before that was similar but I can't remember exactly what it was for, I believe it was some application which itself behaved differently depending on ´argv[0]´. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
