Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:07:08 +0200
From: magnum <>
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.


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, <> <> 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 <> wrote:
>>> Is there advantages of using on the shell python ./ or perl ./
>>> insteal of directly writing ./ or ./ . 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.