Re: Short maximum interpreter length

2016-05-06 Thread Theo de Raadt
> Why is MAXINTERP in only 128? I can think of a few: > > 1. It's been that way a while and nobody's complained > 2. If someone's shebangs are longer than that, they're probably doing > whatever they're doing horribly, horribly wrong > 3. Historical compatibility > > Is it one of those? If not,

Re: Short maximum interpreter length

2016-05-04 Thread Christer Solskogen
On May 4, 2016 03:56, "Donald Allen" > So we can run /usr/bin/5CBC4234CA9D027019381215FAFB31E6482D4B252A36E1EBD5FCFAD12F9E10B85C4C2C917E3DBE6C765CED9719F4F449C47AC9263513458BBEA76B617339B75A > scripts. > This /has/ something to do with docker, right?

Re: Short maximum interpreter length

2016-05-03 Thread Donald Allen
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: > Aioi Yuuko wrote: >> Why is MAXINTERP in only 128? I can think of a few: >> >> 1. It's been that way a while and nobody's complained >> 2. If someone's shebangs are longer than that, they're probably doing >> whatever they're doing horribly, h

Re: Short maximum interpreter length

2016-05-03 Thread Ted Unangst
Aioi Yuuko wrote: > Why is MAXINTERP in only 128? I can think of a few: > > 1. It's been that way a while and nobody's complained > 2. If someone's shebangs are longer than that, they're probably doing > whatever they're doing horribly, horribly wrong > 3. Historical compatibility > > Is it one

Short maximum interpreter length

2016-05-03 Thread Aioi Yuuko
Why is MAXINTERP in only 128? I can think of a few: 1. It's been that way a while and nobody's complained 2. If someone's shebangs are longer than that, they're probably doing whatever they're doing horribly, horribly wrong 3. Historical compatibility Is it one of those? If not, is it something