Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 01:04:06 +0200 From: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <20010925010406.B540@fump.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <20010924155433.A27017@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 03:54:33PM -0700 References: <200109241817.f8OIHBM06001@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010924225049.A958@zerogravity.kawo2.rwth-aachen.d> <20010924155433.A27017@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake David O'Brien (obrien@FreeBSD.org): > > What about test(1)ing with -x if the file is executeable and then > > call /bin/sh to execute it. Seems to be the most logical behaviour > > to me and satifies both revs. > Huh? What is different between ``./foo.sh'' and ``sh foo.sh'' when > foo.sh is excutable? The reason to use `ss' to run `foo.sh' is that > foo.sh does not then need to be executeable. I thought your problem was the missing interpreter (#!...)? If you do [ -x foo.sh ] && /bin/sh foo.sh, it will only get executed if the executeable flag is set, BUT will use the correct interpreter. Alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010925010406.B540>