On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:40:55PM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > Giving them new names, e.g. _hurd_exec_path, might be a good idea to
> > avoid incompatibilities,
>
> FWIW, this seems to be the most reasonable solution to me.
>
> But note that there's a slight terminology issue here:
>
> --c
> Carl Fredrik Hammar writes:
[...]
>>> A final solution might be to change the exec protocol so that
>>> exec*() can pass on the files path, which seems much more
>>> robust. Or possibly do the checking for #!-scripts in glibc... But
>>> you don't have to worry about this, unless you wa
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:18:27PM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> [I've unsuccessfully tried to submit the comment via the Web
> interface at http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/, thus I'm posting it
> to the list instead.]
No problem, people seem to mix the two all the time anyways.
