On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 04:50:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 11:24:07PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > They're referred to by the user, but they're not invoked by the user. > > In one sense, no program on Linux is invoked by the user--only the > > shell actually invokes the program, at the user's direction. > > That's not a very helpful sense for this discussion. > > If you want to indirectly invoke a command via the shell, you type: > > $ /bin/sh -c 'ls' >
Perhaps we have to change the point of view. When you write 'ls' you are telling to the shell to: a) fork a new process b) (optionaly) set some file handler (ie: stdin & stdout) c) exec the indicated executables So you are not really directly invoking the executable, but telling to the shell to do it, using a implicit protocol. Under the Hurd exist a different protocol to run process that is used only for translators, because it requires a more complex dialog. At the moment the shell doesn't speak this protocol, so you need a helper process: settrans. So in this case you have a double indirectly invoked process, but only because your shell is not hurd-speaking ;). Btw even if bash was extended to support hurd-process, it should look for binary in a different path, just because of the different way they work, regardless that is invoked directly by user or not. I hope I was clear... :) -- Saluti / Regards Diego Roversi | | diegor at tiscalinet.it -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]