Eric Blake wrote:
On 05/01/2014 04:11 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
The reason the above fails... (I got it to work).. is that if there is a
space
on the line after the "-u", that also fails.
I didn't deliberately put one there, but that it no longer handles
separate options is an evolution of softwa
On 05/01/2014 04:11 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> The reason the above fails... (I got it to work).. is that if there is a
> space
> on the line after the "-u", that also fails.
>
> I didn't deliberately put one there, but that it no longer handles
> separate options is an evolution of software devolu
Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/30/2014 11:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/28/2014 02:43 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
cat bin/t.sh
#!/bin/bash -u
Um... it doesn't work with 1 argument either.
Your context quoting is hard to follow. Here, you are complaining about
a she-bang with only
On 04/30/2014 11:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 04/28/2014 02:43 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>> >> cat bin/t.sh
>> > #!/bin/bash -u
> Um... it doesn't work with 1 argument either.
Your context quoting is hard to follow. Here, you are complaining about
a she-bang with only one a
Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/28/2014 02:43 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> cat bin/t.sh
> #!/bin/bash -u
Um... it doesn't work with 1 argument either.
This is an invalid shebang line. Historically, you are allowed at most
ONE argument to the program that you will be executing.
?!?
Historically?.. sin
On 04/28/2014 02:43 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> cat bin/t.sh
> #!/bin/bash -u -x
This is an invalid shebang line. Historically, you are allowed at most
ONE argument to the program that you will be executing.
#!/bin/bash -ux
is valid,
#!/bin/bash -u -x
is not.
> If I run it via:
>> bash t.sh
6 matches
Mail list logo
