Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: BUG in ISC UNIX 2.2
Keywords: bug, exec, isc, unix, 386/ix
Message-ID: <1990Jul03.002938.14866@virtech.uucp>
Date: 3 Jul 90 00:29:38 GMT
References: <1990Jun30.212356.1209@virtech.uucp> <1990Jul2.155159.664@turnkey.tcc.com>
Reply-To: cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill)
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc., Sterling VA
Lines: 31

In article <1990Jul2.155159.664@turnkey.tcc.com> jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) writes:
>In article <1990Jun30.212356.1209@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes:
>>Although I can't find it documented anywhere, ISC has apparently added
>>support for exec(2) interpretation of the "#!interpreter" line at 
>>the begining of a script file.  This works pretty well until you give
>>it a name that is longer than 18 bytes.
> 
>Conor, really, I am surprised at you :-}, not reading the release notes on
>a new release! I quote from page 12:
>
>	The exec(2) system call has been enhanced to allow script files to
>	be interpreted by a shell (or command interpreter) of the writers
>	choice. To take advantage of this feature, a script must include
>	the line #! interpreter, where interpreter is any command processor,
>	such as /bin/csh...

I did read the release notes when I installed the system.  When I ran into 
the problem I spend an hour or so going through them again and still didn't
find it.  I must of been smoking some rope.

>In any case, thanks for the info on the related bug, have you informed ISC
>of this other than assuming they track things posted here??

No.  I don't have any real mechanism to report the bug (that I know of).



-- 
Conor P. Cahill            (703)430-9247        Virtual Technologies, Inc.,
uunet!virtech!cpcahil                           46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160
                                                Sterling, VA 22170