On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:43:36PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:29:00AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > I don't have an account (and don't want to have one), so I cannot report > > the bug. Maybe someone with an account could do that. > > I guess I could do that.
It seems Richard already did it. [...] > Ok, that would certainly be detailed enough for a bug report. > > The path with environment ends up in execve(), the other one in > execvp(). execve() requires a shebang line or a binary, execvp() > is more forgiving. I admit that this is ... underdocumented. > > The visible difference here seems to be triggered by the "missing" > "shebang line" in the script. Is that intentional? All of this originated from the fact that epstopdf (from the texlive ditro) failed to execute, and texlive contains a lot of scripts like that. So, in texlive they intentionally use such kind of scripts. Rather than documenting it, I think it is better fixing it. I mean, when execve() returns ENOEXEC, Qt should do as execvp() does, i.e., feeding the file to the shell. -- Enrico
