Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:24:46 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] Support UTF-8 scripts |
| |
On Po 19-09-05 09:18:33, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: > Pavel Machek wrote: > > Why is binfmt_misc not enough for you? > > For two reasons: for one, it has the overhead of yet another > exec call. This is different from usages for, say, Java byte > code or Python byte code, where the registered interpreter already > is the eventual binary which has to be invoked anyway; for > a binfmt_misc application, you need an additional wrapper > which reinterprets the first line, and then invokes the eventual > interpreter.
Who cares? exec is fast.
> The other reason is availability: as an author of an UTF-8 > script, you would have to communicate to your users that they > need the right binfmt_misc wrapper installed (which they may > have to build first). While installing additional stuff to > run a single program is acceptable for large applications, > it is likely not for script files. To make the feature useful > in practice, it must be builtin.
This is distribution problem, not kernel problem. "/bin/ls should be built into kernel, because otherwise you can't call /bin/ls from script" is not an argument.
If UTF-8 compatibility is important, distros will get it right. If it is not, you loose, but at least kernel is not messed up.
Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |