[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3bf07a957ca0c1dd45a1aafeeb39e937@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:07:08 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Unix question
I think that's what Jim meant although "shell method" was confusing. And
I too agree it's safer to pass it as an argument to the interpreter: Yet
another case is when the shebang has it as eg. #!/usr/bin/perl while the
particular system has perl in /ust/local/bin.
magnum
On 2015-08-20 17:55, Shinnok wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I think it's the other way around, passing the script as argument to the interpreter should be more robust than the vice-versa.
>
> Shinnok
>
>> On 20 Aug 2015, at 18:29, <jfoug@....net> <jfoug@....net> wrote:
>>
>> You should probably use the shell method. There will be systems which the she-bang is not right. Also, can you be assured that the scripts will be execute enabled? Using the shell ./script.p[ly] will bypass both of these issues.
>>
>> ---- Mathieu Laprise <mathlaprise@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Is there advantages of using on the shell python ./a.py or perl ./a.pl
>>> insteal of directly writing ./a.py or ./a.pl . Does one of the method has
>>> more chance to work if we don't know anything about the user system, except
>>> that it's a unix one ?
>>> Thanks guys!
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
