On Po 19-09-05 09:18:33, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Why is binfmt_misc not enough for you?
>
> For two reasons: for one, it has the overhead of yet another
> exec call. This is different from usages for, say, Java byte
> code or Python byte code, where the registered interpreter already
> is the eventual binary which has to be invoked anyway; for
> a binfmt_misc application, you need an additional wrapper
> which reinterprets the first line, and then invokes the eventual
> interpreter.
Who cares? exec is fast.
> The other reason is availability: as an author of an UTF-8
> script, you would have to communicate to your users that they
> need the right binfmt_misc wrapper installed (which they may
> have to build first). While installing additional stuff to
> run a single program is acceptable for large applications,
> it is likely not for script files. To make the feature useful
> in practice, it must be builtin.
This is distribution problem, not kernel problem. "/bin/ls should be
built into kernel, because otherwise you can't call /bin/ls from
script" is not an argument.
If UTF-8 compatibility is important, distros will get it right. If it
is not, you loose, but at least kernel is not messed up.
Pavel
--
if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |