Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

[Bill Davidsen]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:16:26AM +0200, Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 May 2005, Ryan Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:31:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > > > That said, I think the /usr/bin/env trick is stupid too. It may be more
> > > > > portable for various Linux distributions, but if you want _true_
> > > > > portability, you use /bin/sh, and you do something like
> > > > >
> > > > > #!/bin/sh
> > > > > exec perl perlscript.pl "$@"
> > > >
> > > > if 0;
> >
> > exec may fail.
> >
> > #!/bin/sh
> > exec perl -x $0 ${1+"$@"} || exit 127
> > #!perl
> >
> >
> > > > You don't really want Perl to get itself into an exec loop.
> > >
> > > This would _not_ be "perlscript.pl" itself. This is the shell-script, and
> > > it's not called ".pl".
> >
> > In this thread, it originally was.
>
>
> In this thread, it was originally a Python script. In particular, one
> aimed at managing the Linux kernel source. I'm going to use
> /usr/bin/env, systems where that doesn't exist can edit the source.

On the theory that my first post got lost, why use /usr/bin/env at all, 
when bash already does that substitution? To support people who use 
other shells?

ie.:
   FOO=xx perl -e '$a=$ENV{FOO}; print "$a\n"'
--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/