Re: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script's interpreter doesn't exist.
- From: Jonathan Reed <jdreed@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:08:58 -0400 (EDT)
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 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.
More advanced users might at that point try and run "ldd" on the binary (which will also fail, thanks to a missing interpreter). The average user will never think to run "strings" on the binary and look for /lib/ld-linux.so.1.
Please improve manpage instead.
What manpage do you suggest needs improvement? execve(2)? That again 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.
-Jon
---
Jonathan Reed
jdreed@xxxxxxx
Faculty and Student Experience
Information Services & Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
--
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: PAT wc & vmap mapping count issue ?
- Next by Date: Re: [wireless] rt2870sta BUGs on shutdown, 2.6.30.2->git.today+git.wireless.today
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script's interpreter doesn't exist.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Return ENOEXEC, not ENOENT, if a binary's or script's interpreter doesn't exist.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
