On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 08:43:18AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > line). Then we know that what we exec is actually a shell (unless somebody > puts something weird as a root's shell - but that's not our problem) and we > can forget about the case as above with a perl/whatever script returning a > 127 error code. Either way, the error code _bears_ a possibility of being > returned by the dynamic loader and it's better to be safe than sorry. That wasn't the point. Did you try what I wrote? The point was that bash's return code is the return code of the program last executed by bash--it's not necessarily something determined by bash itself. You can't rely on the content of bash's return code because you have *no* control over what I run in my bash session, or what it might return. And no, it's not better to be safe than sorry if your idea of "safe" has the possiblity of starting *two* shells when I use root's shell. Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgpRzK_FNYVU0.pgp
Description: PGP signature