Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> * Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001122 22:41] wrote:
> > Could I get some feedback on <URL:
> > >? It's just a
> > one-line kernel patch with some attendant updates in the kernel and
> > libc, but it makes dealing with broken #! scripts *much* saner, and no
> > one has even seen fit to comment on it yet :-(.

Thank you for taking time to look at it.

> This patch may break compliance, ENOEXEC is the proper error code,

Um - compliance with what, exactly? I know it breaks compliance with
Unix standards for user friendliness, but that was the point. I also
agree that ENOEXEC is the best currently existing error code - but for
this it pretty much sucks. Exec returns other codes providing more
informative error messages; adding one more shouldn't be a problem.

> the shell should try to be a bit smarter about explaining why
> ENOEXEC was returned.

Um - not "the" shell; all of them. Given that the authors of some of
them are worried about portability, doing so portably is probably
important as well. That's why I decided it belonged in the
kernel. Doing this means that all shells get the benefit of it without
a source change, and the only change other than better error messages
was if there is an executable with the same name behind a broken
script in the path - and I *couldn't* convince myself that was a


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to