On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 17:50 +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
>
> If your scripts are executable script -c ./foo (with foo being your
> script) should work. sh would exec `foo' which -hopefully- has the
> correct interpreter in its shebang (i.e. csh, sh, ksh, perl, lua...)
>
Yes, thank you.
On 2023/03/30 22:59:08 +0800, lux wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 16:31 +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
> >
> > Furthermore, the man page explicitly states that script -c runs
> > sh(1):
> >
> > -c command
> > Run sh -c command, instead of an interactive shell.
> > [...]
> >
> > So I'd
On Thu, 2023-03-30 at 16:31 +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
>
> Furthermore, the man page explicitly states that script -c runs
> sh(1):
>
> -c command
> Run sh -c command, instead of an interactive shell.
> [...]
>
> So I'd say that script(1) is working as intended. What was exactly
Hello,
On 2023/03/29 22:39:52 +0800, lux wrote:
> Hi, the name of the shell subprocess is hardcoded in the `script'
> command.
>
> The test is as follows:
>
> $ echo $SHELL
> /bin/ksh
> $ script -c 'echo $0'
> Script started, output file is type
Hi, the name of the shell subprocess is hardcoded in the `script'
command.
The test is as follows:
$ echo $SHELL
/bin/ksh
$ script -c 'echo $0'
Script started, output file is typescript
sh < The correct one should
