On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 18:48 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Svante Signell, le Sat 07 Jan 2012 17:58:31 +0100, a écrit : > > On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 15:48 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Svante Signell, le Sat 07 Jan 2012 15:43:46 +0100, a écrit : ... > I'm not talking about Linux, but about GNU/Hurd. When run from > execv, $0 in a shell script in hurd will be /dev/fd/3, not > e.g. $PWD/script.sh. Try the source code I had pasted in my mail, you'll > see.
I ran the code you posted (an on the ML) on GNU/Linux, and will do the same for GNU/Hurd! It still does not explain how having . in $PATH solves the problem. > > > > 3) How come other architectures don't have this problem, and only Hurd > > > > has? > > > > > > Because Hurd is not Unix. BTW: Gnu is Not Unix and HURD is Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons and HIRD is ... > > Sorry, Samuel, I don't consider the above an answer. > > I'm sorry, but that's the most reasonable one with little time spent on > it. execv shares about zero code between linux and hurd, so there's no > way to can expect any similarity in bugs. > > > Obviously other architectures have been able to solve this problem > > without introducing a new RPC. > > Yes, because in a monolithic kernel, you can do anything you want. OK! > Sorry for being harsh here, but it'd be good if you could at some point > manage to read e.g. the glibc source code yourself and find out things > yourself, Only reading the glibc source code would take ages for me to even come above the water level. Is there some description of the gnumach/hurd parts available? > because the more you ask me things, the less I have time to > spend on other things, such as the dhcp patch which I still haven't > found any time to work on. I could do that if you agree that we go back the the get_hw_address patch I first submitted is a better way to resolve the upstream doubts than your updated version. No problem, just let me know.
