Subject: Re: script command
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 05/01/2003 19:44:49
> A bit far afield but since the common direction seems to be touting
> POS-ix, one would think that sh knew how to parse options in a similar
> manner to, or in fact use, getopt(3), and abide by its constructs; i.e.
> sh -c -x command -y would (try to) execute "-x", while
> sh -x -c command -y would (try to) execute "command".
> [note that quotes are needed around "command args..." in order to get
> it to work properly.]
Indeed our shell does obey posix (since I fixed it a few months ago).
The synopsis has:
sh -c [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name]
[+o option_name] command_string [command_name [argument ...]]
sh -c "command args" will look for a file command\ args, not execute
command with args.
> Regarding su: Since 'su' with no args denotes 'su root', should not
> "su -c 'command args...'" execute "command args"? Perhaps that's
> not the way it's ever worked, but it would seem to make the most sense.
> Otherwise we should *gag choke* _require_ a username and not assume
> a default -- or does that break other things (like user habits and
> POS-ix compliance)?
su is funny in posix - because 'su -' is required to behave in its
tradional manner - which doesn't have any arguments except the'-'.
> By comparison with Solaris, our sh is broken, btw: Solaris behaves
> as expected.
in what way do you mean 'expected' ?
David Laight: firstname.lastname@example.org