Max Nikulin <maniku...@gmail.com> writes: >> 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*. > > My concern is that your patch trying to fix one bug (I am not convinced > it is an improvement despite it is a step toward consistency) introduces > another one that is not currently present in the code.
May you explain which bug you are referring to? The bug with bash -c ./script-with-no-shebang described in https://superuser.com/questions/502984/writing-shell-scripts-that-will-run-on-any-shell-using-multiple-shebang-lines is already present, and my patch does not change anything about it. >> (with-temp-file script-file >> (if shebang (insert shebang "\n") >> (insert "#!" shell-file-name "\n")) >> (when padline (insert "\n")) >> (insert body)) > > This code has an issue. Interpretation of relative file names in > shebangs varies across shells. May you elaborate? Are you concerned that `shell-file-name' may not be an absolute path? > If you insist on parsing :cmdline by shell (I do not like it) then you > may try > > <shell-file-name> <shell-command-switch> '<shell-file-name> > <script-file> <cmdline>' May you explain how it is better? -- 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>
