[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:       2017-03-18 12:06:25
Message-ID: 15ae14fc584.e62261cc19559.1543491487871763292 () zoho ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

 ---- On Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:22:39 +0100 Patrick Pief <p.pief@zoho.com> wrote ---- 
 >  ---- 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] ´.
 > 

Any update on this? Yay or nay on my patch?

_______________________________________________
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]