Re: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script'sinterpreter doesn't exist.

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2009-07-30 13:08:58, Jonathan Reed wrote:
>> NAK. Current behaviour is useful -- and it is really file thats
>> missing.
>
> The current behavior is only useful to people who have an understanding 
> of how interpreters and binaries work on Linux.  The average desktop
> user 

Proposed behaviour is useless to everyone.

> does not have that understanding.  The average user gets an error message
> such as:
>
> /usr/bin/foo: No such file or directory.
>
> They then go and look at /usr/bin/foo, find that it exists, and are  
> extremely confused.

ENOEXEC is confusing, too. It will have x bit.

>> Please improve manpage instead.
>
> What manpage do you suggest needs improvement?  execve(2)?  That
>again  

execve, I'd say.

> requires an average user to realize that they need to go look at the  
> execve(2) manpage.  The average user is not going to realize that.

Improve shells to provide more helpful error message?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/