Re: [Fwd: Debugging execve problems]

[Svante Signell]

On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 18:48 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Sat 07 Jan 2012 17:58:31 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 15:48 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Sat 07 Jan 2012 15:43:46 +0100, a écrit :
...
> I'm not talking about Linux, but about GNU/Hurd. When run from
> execv, $0 in a shell script in hurd will be /dev/fd/3, not
> e.g. $PWD/script.sh. Try the source code I had pasted in my mail, you'll
> see.

I ran the code you posted (an on the ML) on GNU/Linux, and will do the
same for GNU/Hurd! It still does not explain how having . in $PATH
solves the problem.

> > > > 3) How come other architectures don't have this problem, and only Hurd
> > > > has? 
> > > 
> > > Because Hurd is not Unix.

BTW: Gnu is Not Unix and HURD is Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons and HIRD
is  ...

> > Sorry, Samuel, I don't consider the above an answer.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's the most reasonable one with little time spent on
> it. execv shares about zero code between linux and hurd, so there's no
> way to can expect any similarity in bugs.
> 
> > Obviously other architectures have been able to solve this problem
> > without introducing a new RPC.
> 
> Yes, because in a monolithic kernel, you can do anything you want.

OK!

> Sorry for being harsh here, but it'd be good if you could at some point
> manage to read e.g. the glibc source code yourself and find out things
> yourself, 

Only reading the glibc source code would take ages for me to even come
above the water level. Is there some description of the gnumach/hurd
parts available?

> because the more you ask me things, the less I have time to
> spend on other things, such as the dhcp patch which I still haven't
> found any time to work on.

I could do that if you agree that we go back the the get_hw_address
patch I first submitted is a better way to resolve the upstream doubts
than your updated  version. No problem, just let me know.