From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261565AbUBYXYb (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:24:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261580AbUBYXVg (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:21:36 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:60842 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261575AbUBYXPM (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:15:12 -0500 X-Authenticated: #20799612 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:13:08 +0100 From: Hansjoerg Lipp To: Paul Jackson Cc: aebr@win.tue.nl, jamie@shareable.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux 2.6: shebang handling in fs/binfmt_script.c Message-ID: <20040225231308.GA7744@hobbes> References: <20040222020911.2c8ea5c6.pj@sgi.com> <20040222155410.GA3051@hobbes> <20040222125312.11749dfd.pj@sgi.com> <20040222225750.GA27402@mail.shareable.org> <20040222214457.6f8d2224.pj@sgi.com> <20040223142215.GB30321@mail.shareable.org> <20040223173446.GA2830@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20040223134610.3b6d01a9.pj@sgi.com> <20040224011355.GC6426@hobbes> <20040223172942.5a18528a.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040223172942.5a18528a.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 05:29:42PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote: > > I don't see any reason, why one should stick to the limits of some other > > operating systems, when it's not necessary. > > If I make it a habit to write portable code, then over the years, I > cause fewer problems for myself and others. More things "just work". > I've got scripts that I use that are 10 or 20 years old, and have been > used on all manner of evironments that could not have been anticipated > when the script was first written. Yes, it's true, that this is often sensible. But I also think, that sometimes we must get rid of old restrictions, that don't make much sense. The patch does not prevent you from writing portable scripts, but it allows us to write scripts, that can't be written without this change (or you need some work around like wrappers or an interpreter parsing the shebang line on its own). And because you could see this patch as a step towards other operating systems to reduce the chaos the web pages mentioned in this thread show[1], this patch might even make scripts written for other operating systems work under Linux. So, there are not only disadvantages with regard to portability. Regards, Hansjoerg Lipp [1] http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shebang/ http://homepages.cwi.nl/~aeb/std/hashexclam-1.html