-2.0
Programming Lang: Rust
Description : Shebang interpreter for writing scripts in compiled
languages.
This package is a great tool to develop single-file scripts in any programming
language,
even if the programming language requires multiple files or build configuration
files.
I am
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pirate Praveen
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-shebang-command
Version : 1.2.0
Upstream Author : Kevin Martensson
(github.com/kevva)
* URL : https://github.com/kevva/shebang-command#readme
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pirate Praveen
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
* Package name: node-shebang-regex
Version : 2.0.0
Upstream Author : Sindre Sorhus
(sindresorhus.com)
* URL : https://github.com/sindresorhus/shebang-regex
* License
ad) idea.
In fact, I wonder whether anything would break if we removed the ability
to run shebang-less scripts from our shells.
Currently, they do this:
* bash opens the script and interprets it
* ash dash immediately execve() /bin/sh with the script
* mksh obviously opens the file and tries to
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:04:32PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > > Sure. I’ve patched mksh
> >
> > mksh doesn't count as a reference.
> Did you even read before replying? He patched it to use #? Instead of #! that
> was using.
> He was sure about it being there because he had patched it to b
L (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...
>
> Uhm, excuse me?
>
> “Larry Page: 1.5 million Android de
In data venerdì 04 aprile 2014 17.38.12, Andrey Rahmatullin ha scritto:
> > Sure. I’ve patched mksh
>
> mksh doesn't count as a reference.
Did you even read before replying? He patched it to use #? Instead of #! that
was using.
He was sure about it being there because he had patched it to behave
* Thorsten Glaser , 2014-04-04, 12:58:
Try duckduckgoïng instead ☻ or searching POSIX, or something.
SUSv4 “helpfully” says:
If the first line of a file of shell commands starts with the characters
"#!", the results are unspecified.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-r
so. As
you cited, it’s probably not. Doesn’t mean the shell doesn’t or
shouldn’t.
> > 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
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser 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
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:58:23PM +0200, Thorsten Glaser 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
mksh doesn't count as a reference.
> > some cursory googling.
> Try duck
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:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 06:51:31PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:12:33PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> >>> === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> >>> --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:3
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:12:33PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> === modified file 'policy.sgml'
>>> --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
>>> +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 01:10:42 +
>>> @@ -1725,7 +1725
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:20:17PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:12:33PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> > --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
> > +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 01:10:42 +
> > @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
> >
> >
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:12:33PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
> +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 01:10:42 +
> @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
>
> It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f,
> so tha
]] Peter Samuelson
(I think this discussion is getting silly, feel free to take it to
private mail.)
| > | === modified file 'policy.sgml'
| > | --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
| > | +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 00:59:18 +
| > | @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
| > |
| > | I
> | === modified file 'policy.sgml'
> | --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
> | +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 00:59:18 +
> | @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
> |
> | It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f,
[Tollef Fog Heen]
> This should probably also be changed to allow «
]] Ben Finney
| === modified file 'policy.sgml'
| --- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
| +++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 00:59:18 +
| @@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
|
| It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f,
This should probably also be changed to allow «#! /usr/bin/make
t behave
>> > identically, to prevent confusion, and to promote reproducibility, and
>> > conform to the principle of least surprise.
>>
>> Rather than a new rule, I submit this patch to clarify the existing rule
>> for the shebang line.
>
> I was slop
te reproducibility, and
> > conform to the principle of least surprise.
>
> Rather than a new rule, I submit this patch to clarify the existing rule
> for the shebang line.
I was sloppy in my use of normative language; this is a “must” directive.
=== modified file 'policy.sgml&#x
the principle of least surprise.
Rather than a new rule, I submit this patch to clarify the existing rule
for the shebang line.
=== modified file 'policy.sgml'
--- policy.sgml 2009-10-21 20:49:37 +
+++ policy.sgml 2009-10-31 00:59:18 +
@@ -1725,7 +1725,10 @@
It m
22 matches
Mail list logo
