Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes:
> Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> + shell-file-name
>> ...
>>> + (list shell-command-switch
>>> + (concat (file-local-name script-file) " "
>>> cmdline))))
>>
>> Using `shell-command-switch' unconditionally may lead to executing
>> /bin/sh instead of shell specified by `shell-file-name' for script files
>> having no shebang, see
>>
>> https://superuser.com/questions/502984/writing-shell-scripts-that-will-run-on-any-shell-using-multiple-shebang-lines
>
> Good point.
I am looking at this again, and notice that the problem with
`shell-command-switch' is tangent to the original bug report we are
discussing.
Currently, ob-shell uses two ways to execute the source block:
1. When :shebang header argument is provided,
<script-file> '<cmdline>'
2. When :shebang is not provided
<shell-file-name> <shell-command-switch> '<script-file> <cmdline>'
The problem you linked to only manifests for calling script files
_without_ shebang, while the original bug report is about the case when
:shebang is given.
I conclude that your concern, while being valid, is a _different_ bug.
Thus, I do not see it as a blocker for my patch - my patch will fix the
*original bug reported on top of this thread*.
As for the problem with <shell-file-name> <shell-command-switch> <script-file>
when <script-file> does not contain shebang, we can trivially at that
shebang like
(with-temp-file script-file
(if shebang (insert shebang "\n")
(insert "#!" shell-file-name "\n"))
(when padline (insert "\n"))
(insert body))
--
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
