phil at hands.com
Sat Nov 28 06:52:01 AEDT 2015
Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:34:50PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> It's not clear, even to a reasonably intelligent bash progammer, that
>> the use of "exec" is to insure compatibility with fish and tcsh users.
> The use of exec is not to ensure compatability. Just doing
> sh -c "..."
> would be enough.
> The "exec" is for efficiency. It is not _needed_.
> I would skip it, personally. The efficiency gains are neglibible.
I doubt I'd have put the "exec" in, but having thought about it briefly,
I decided to keep it (at least until someone points to a shell that
doesn't have exec, but would otherwise succeed in running sh).
FWIW I think Nico does have a point about having a comment that would
act as a reminder not to break the portability features of that line, so
that's what I'll do.
|)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the openssh-unix-dev