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.