> That is a corner of portable sh programming I'm not really familiar
> with. I guess what matters in the Hurd and GNU context is to stay
> compatible with, in some order
The canonical portable form is:
${1+"$@"}
That is wholly portable. Probaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]"$@"} is too, but ${1+"$
Jeff Sheinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Niels Möller writes:
> > exec kill "$@"
>
> >
> > isn't good enough? If it has to be written in C for whatever reason, I
> > guess GNU sh-utils is the right place.
>
> How about using this construct to access the arguments, a
Niels Möller writes:
> Is there any good reason why a /bin/kill that looks like
>
> #! /bin/sh
> exec kill "$@"
>
> isn't good enough? If it has to be written in C for whatever reason, I
> guess GNU sh-utils is the right place.
How about using this construct to acc
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's good. So we have a reason now to include
> a binary kill somewhere. Any suggestions?
Is there any good reason why a /bin/kill that looks like
#! /bin/sh
exec kill "$@"
isn't good enough? If it has to be written in C for whatever reason
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 11:52:40AM -0500, Neal H Walfield wrote:
> > Nobody needs kill as a shell program.
>
> Completely not true: `kill' is not a builtin of the sudo program.
That's good. So we have a reason now to include
a binary kill somewhere. Any suggestions?
Marcus
> Nobody needs kill as a shell program.
Completely not true: `kill' is not a builtin of the sudo program.
pgpD0GDMNuHSM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
I just saw on IRC in the title: please help fix: db3 configure script
dies when looking for kill. Please people, it's fine to look in IRC
for help, but also send a short notice to the list.
The Hurd does have kill only as a shell builtin. The kill in whatever
package it is in under Linux us
7 matches
Mail list logo
