Re: Should this be this way?

[Chet Ramey]

On 2/26/13 3:39 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> 
> 
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 2/26/13 12:41 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>>
>>>     It isn't using the current value of SHELL as my shell nor the value
>>> of my login shell.

None of this is relevant, see below.

> #if 1                                         <---------------Note problem??

Your vendor, which may be SuSE, has changed bash and shipped the modified
version.  They have chosen to interpret Posix ("a command equivalent to
having a shell invoked with the pathname resulting from the search as its
first operand") as requiring that bash actually invoke /bin/sh, with all
of the consequences of starting a fresh process.  I imagine they didn't
change the man page while they were at it, nor produce a list somewhere
of the changes they made.

I'm always going to answer from the perspective of bash as I distribute it.
This is a different case.

You should follow Greg's excellent advice and include the #! line.  That's
the only way you can be sure of what you get.

> (SuSE ism?)
>   larray = strvec_len(args) + 1;
>   args = strvec_resize(args, larray + 1);
> 
>   for (i = larray - 1; i; i--)
>     args[i] = args[i - 1];
> 
>   args[0] = savestring(_PATH_BSHELL);
>   args[1] = command;
>   args[larray] = (char *)0;
> 
>   SETOSTYPE (0);              /* Some systems use for USG/POSIX semantics */
>   execve ("/bin/sh", args, env);
>   SETOSTYPE (1);
> 
>   internal_error (_("%s: cannot execute: %s"), command, strerror (errno));

Chet
-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/