UsrMove feature (was Re: FESCo meeting minutes for 2011-10-24)
mkkp4x4 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 18:44:29 UTC 2011
2011/10/25 Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>:
> Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com> said:
>> 2011/10/25 Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>:
>> > Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com> said:
>> >> I created feature page
>> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters
>> > I strongly object to this "feature". /bin/sh is a Unix standard back to
>> > IIRC around 7th Edition, and there is NO good reason to break it. The
>> > "#!/usr/bin/env foo" suggested replacement has always been a hack to
>> > work around broken systems, not something suggested for all scripts.
>> What is wrong with
>> #!/usr/bin/env interpreter
>> from technical POV?
> It is an unnecessary hack, since the intepreters all have standard
> locations. It also adds the overhead of a second exec() call and a PATH
> search (start env, let it parse its command line, then search the PATH
> for the desired interpreter, then exec() the interpreter).
Overhead is not big - about 0,00094s according to Richard's test.
> It also makes system scripts more fragile; for example, if somebody
> installs (from source) a different version of python in /usr/local/bin,
> all RPM-installed scripts in /usr/bin (that may not even work with that
> version) will now use the new version with unpredictable results.
Yes, this is a good argument.
> Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
> I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the devel