[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] add exec -a support (preliminary)
From:       Patrick Pief <p.pief () zoho ! com>
Date:       2017-02-01 14:22:39
Message-ID: 159fa0e51c6.1103393e32247.1928348285611370159 () zoho ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

 ---- On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 07:30:46 +0100 Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com> wrote ---- 
 > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Patrick Pief <p.pief@zoho.com> wrote: 
 > > There were several times where I thought that having "exec -a" in busybox would 
 > > be neat, and while "exec -a" is not POSIX it is still supported in a lot of 
 > > shells (see http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/250681/117599 ). 
 >  
 > It can be reasonably easily implemented, but I have hard time imagining 
 > why would you need it in real-world usage. 
 >  
 > Usually when people ask for something I assume they do need it 
 > (and can imagine some scenarios). In this case, I don't see them. 
 >  
 > Why do you need it? 
 > 

Last time I needed it was for a wrapper script so that there would be no
difference of how the process appears in `ps` which some 3rd party scripts
uses to check whether the specific program is running.

As a workaround I simply put the original executable in a subfolder and then
did a  ´exec ´, but with  ´exec -a ´ I could've simply renamed it. And the case
before that was similar but I can't remember exactly what it was for, I believe
it was some application which itself behaved differently depending on  ´argv[0] ´.

_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]