Fixed in current git.
On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Patrick Pief <[email protected]> wrote: > ---- On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:22:39 +0100 Patrick Pief <[email protected]> wrote > ---- > > ---- 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]´. > > > > Any update on this? Yay or nay on my patch? > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
