Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Bill Davidsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 12:22:06 -0400

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:16:26AM +0200, Bodo Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>Linus Torvalds <[email-masked]> 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 ([email-masked])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me