Re: IT IS A BUG -- Re: Strangeness when binary executable overwritten by text -- bug or feature?
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 06:18:17AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/04/2018 07:34 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> >I don't think the login shell setting has anything to do with it.
>
> You obviously could not be bothered trying it!
I don't run any of the same software as you so it would be a lot of
work to try this out. I'm only trying to help you file the right bug
against the right software, but if that is not welcome just say so
and I am happy to leave you to it.
If I understand correctly:
- You have a launcher file that references an executable. In normal
cases calling the launcher from your desktop environment (I don't
know if this is by menu or button or something else) causes the
binary to run. I'm assuming it is a command line binary and you've
told it to run in a terminal, so, the expected result is a
terminal window with this program running in it.
- You accidentally overwrote the binary with the textual output of
"man" resulting in a file which was still marked executable but
was not a valid Linux binary or script.
- Now when you call the launcher there is no visual feedback to
indicate that there was a problem.
- You told the launcher to run a terminal with a login shell and now
it does do something to indicate there was a failure of the
binary.
- You therefore conclude that every launcher which uses a terminal
should default to using a login shell and wish to file a bug to
that effect.
I'm expressing disbelief that the terminal using a login shell is
what is making the difference, but you weren't clear about what the
difference actually is.
So, assuming I understand the situation (as above), what is the
actual difference in behaviour when you run this corrupt binary from
a launcher that is set to terminal+login as opposed to just
terminal?
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
"I remember the first time I made love. Perhaps it was not love exactly but I
made it and it still works." — The League Against Tedium
Reply to: