Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On 18 January 2012 16:10, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 03:34:07PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> On 17 January 2012 14:32, Andy Dougherty <doughera@lafayette.edu> wrote: >> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Andy Dougherty wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: >> > >> >> If I recall correctly, 'indir' was a program designed to indirectly >> >> execute other programs. My recollection is that it was supposed to be >> >> particularly useful in setuid situations where the OS didn't natively >> >> provide you much help, and/or perhaps in situations where the OS kernel >> >> limited you to 32 character command lines. >> > >> > Ah, here it is: >> > >> > http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/usenet/ftp.uu.net/comp.sources.unix/volume21/indir.gz >> >> I am impressed ! Thanks for digging that out. > > Thanks. That's useful to know. > >> I'll push (later) a patch to remove the "indir" special-case. >> As for the decision of deprecating (or cutting off) the whole >> exec-what's-on-the-shebang functionality, I'll wait for informed >> advice. > > Is there any way to work out who is using this? > > I'm a bit stuck as to how to measure it. And really without any feeling for > whether it's useful to anyone, I find it hard to have an opinion about it. Also, who uses the exec-what's-on-the-shebang feature nowadays ? > The code is (effectively) stable. Is it getting in the way? It's surprising and undocumented. I could document it. But I fear that the number of users for that hidden feature is 0.Thread Previous | Thread Next