Hi, Thorsten Glaser <t.gla...@tarent.de> writes: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, Chow Loong Jin wrote: > >> Are you sure about this? > > Yes. > >> Some references would be helpful. I can't seem to find anything on this >> through > > Sure. I’ve patched mksh to use “#?” ipv “#!” as shebang, to > simulate a kernel not supporting the shebang: [...] > Try duckduckgoïng instead ☻ or searching POSIX, or something.
I tried and found that POSIX says the shell shall try execve(), and if that fails 'the shell shall execute a command equivalent to having a shell invoked with the pathname resulting from the search as its first operand, with any remaining arguments passed to the new shell, except that the value of "$0" in the new shell may be set to the command name.'[1] No #! involved. [1] <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_09_01_01> Furthermore Wikipedia says "For this reason and because POSIX does not standardize path names, POSIX does not standardize the feature."[2]. [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebang_%28Unix%29#Portability> I'm interested where POSIX says what you are sure it says (that the shell is responsible for evaluating #!). > Also, “man mksh” look for EXECSHELL (which is the interpreter the > shell uses if the script doesn’t even have a shebang). I don't think the manual for a not commonly used shell is a good reference... Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ha69xqyj....@deep-thought.43-1.org
