Stephen Harris <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:34:50PM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> It's not clear, even to a reasonably intelligent bash progammer, that >> the use of "exec" is to insure compatibility with fish and tcsh users. > > The use of exec is not to ensure compatability. Just doing > sh -c "..." > would be enough. > > The "exec" is for efficiency. It is not _needed_. > > I would skip it, personally. The efficiency gains are neglibible. I doubt I'd have put the "exec" in, but having thought about it briefly, I decided to keep it (at least until someone points to a shell that doesn't have exec, but would otherwise succeed in running sh). FWIW I think Nico does have a point about having a comment that would act as a reminder not to break the portability features of that line, so that's what I'll do. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
