From: Boris <ribalkin@gmail.com>
To: Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com>
Cc: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vladimir Sapronov <vladimir.sapronov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: script relative shebang
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 23:41:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EFB0946-2224-46B0-B109-12E1556260FD@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160602041934.GA13820@milliways.localdomain>
I still think it is a good thing to do.
I will try to implement it on github and may be some day someone influential will help me with that :)
On 2 June 2016 05:19:34 BST, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 01:04:46AM +0100, Boris Rybalkin wrote:
>> Sorry for insisting, but I would like to explore potential solutions
>> for fixing the root problem (missing relative shebang),
>> I know there are ways to workaround that, but I would like to make
>> sure the proper fix is not possible.
>> I understood that it is too late to introduce additional keywords
>> after #! as existing systems expect fs path there, OK.
>> But what about changing #! itself, is it possible to introduce
>another
>> special sequence like #? to denote a relative mode:
>>
>> #?python/bin/python
>>
>If you are able to get that accepted, it will only work on linux
>systems running such recent kernels. For your own systems, you can
>of course do whatever you wish. But for public availability you
>will then need to wait several years until your target linux users
>can be expected to have moved to a suitable kernel (presumably the
>*next* long-term stable kernel after the change is accepted : I
>guess that version is perhaps the best part of a year away even if
>your change got accepted into 4.8, and then you need your users'
>distros to move to it).
>
>To me, that doesn't seem worth the trouble (to you) of coding it,
>getting it reviewed and eventually accepted, and then fixing up
>whatever problems arise after it gets into linux-next [ problems
>will always appear, even if the new code turns out not to be the
>cause ].
>
>And first, you have to persuade somebody influential that this is a
>good thing to do, particularly when people have suggested
>alternative approaches. I don't count, but at the moment I've not
>seen any good reasons why the kernel should be changed to support
>this.
>
>But it's your time, and your itch to scratch.
>
>ĸen
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-02 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 21:47 Boris Rybalkin
2016-05-31 23:02 ` Nicolai Stange
2016-06-01 8:00 ` Boris
2016-06-01 12:12 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2016-06-01 15:38 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-06-02 0:04 ` Boris Rybalkin
2016-06-02 4:19 ` Ken Moffat
2016-06-02 22:41 ` Boris [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3EFB0946-2224-46B0-B109-12E1556260FD@gmail.com \
--to=ribalkin@gmail.com \
--cc=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=vladimir.sapronov@gmail.com \
--cc=zarniwhoop@ntlworld.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®