From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 13 09:08:11 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA5116A41C; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:08:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: from isis.sigpipe.cz (fw.sigpipe.cz [62.245.70.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E484743D49; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:08:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from neuhauser@sigpipe.cz) Received: by isis.sigpipe.cz (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9A52D1F87BED; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:08:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:08:08 +0200 From: Roman Neuhauser To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Message-ID: <20050613090808.GB1789@isis.sigpipe.cz> Mail-Followup-To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org References: <200506090027.j590R2t0070899@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050609003619.GA10578@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050609100815.GB16677@over-yonder.net> <20050609160316.GC16677@over-yonder.net> <20050610062431.GA78875@isis.sigpipe.cz> <86fyvq3c4o.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050610112857.GB80719@isis.sigpipe.cz> <86psuuv1z6.fsf@xps.des.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86psuuv1z6.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bug in #! processing - "pear broken on current" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:08:11 -0000 # des@des.no / 2005-06-10 14:19:09 +0200: > Roman Neuhauser writes: > > That simply shows that all these *Linux* distros don't handle > > shebang lines well. > > Actually, it shows that they handle shebang lines *correctly*, and > that we don't unilaterally break Pear by aligning ourselves with them. These two were identical before: #!/usr/local/bin/php -n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1 % /usr/local/bin/php -n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1 These two are identical now: #!/usr/local/bin/php -n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1 % /usr/local/bin/php "-n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1" Obviously, "correct" is whatever behavior we declare as such. But is the latter actually useful? The Linux distros you shown hacking around the shebang parsing limitations (forking another shell to achieve the correct parsing) shows just that: Linux distros basically avoiding anything above the simplest "#!/bin/sh". -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991