home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips)
-
- >>>>> On 22 Jan 91 21:28:49 GMT, guy@auspex.uucp (Guy Harris) said:
-
- Guy> I don't strongly care where it's done (although I *do* prefer having
- Guy> "execl()" AND "execv()" capable of running scripts, even if it's done by
- Guy> having them be wrappers around kernel traps with the wrappers checking
- Guy> for the "#!" line if they get ENOEXEC), but it *would* be nice if the
- Guy> system didn't inappropriately try to run files that happened to have
- Guy> execute permissions as scripts if, in fact, they aren't scripts.
-
- Essentially, "#!" becomes a magic number. I would also prefer this be in
- the kernal.
-
- Invitation for discussion: If the path after the "#!" doesn't begin with
- "/", "./" or "../", should PATH be searched for the execuatble? If so, how
- best could this be implemented?
-
- The reason I bring this up is in SVr4 (OSF/1?), there have been changes in
- the directory hierarchy and commands are not necessarily where they've
- historically been. Of course, all scripts that are part of the OS can (and
- should!) contain absolute path names. It would be nice for application
- developers to be able to write hierarchy independent scripts. Even nicer
- would be for applications developers to be able to write their own
- interpreters without caring where the user installs the interpreter (as
- long as the interpreter's directory is in PATH).
- --
- Chuck Phillips MS440
- NCR Microelectronics chuck.phillips%ftcollins.ncr.com
- 2001 Danfield Ct.
- Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 ...uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 107
-
-