Am 01.12.18 um 23:31 schrieb Thorsten Glaser: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> I'd also be interested to know why >> >> #!/usr/bin/env /lib/init/init-d-script >> is preferred over >> #!/bin/sh /lib/init/init-d-script >> given that init-d-script is *no* C implementation. > > That’s easy: this way, the shebang at the start of > /lib/init/init-d-script can, if needed, select a > shell other than /bin/sh to be the interpreter, e.g. > if shell-specific features need to be used.
Is that actually a good thing? If shell specific features are needed, do we know that they are compatible with lib/init/init-d-script? > This will also make it easier to switch to a binary > implementation later. If there is a binary implementation, then you would be using #!/lib/init/init-d-script -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
