| |||||||||||||
Making EPERM friendlierMaking EPERM friendlierPosted Jan 19, 2013 5:24 UTC (Sat) by josh (subscriber, #17465)Parent article: Making EPERM friendlier
Perhaps this could also make another error case more friendly: running a program can mysteriously fail with ENOENT if its ELF interpreter doesn't exist, which proves mystifying at first since the program itself does exist.
(Log in to post comments)
Making EPERM friendlier Posted Jan 19, 2013 11:23 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's only mystifying the very first time: after you spent day or two trying to understand what's wrong with your file (redownload it, unpack it again, try to give it 777 permissions, etc) and finally ask on mailing list and get the answer "oh, well, it's obvious: you need 32bit-compatibility subsystem, the file which is not found is actually /lib/ld-linux.so.2, not the file which you are trying to run"... it's frustrating enough that you remember that fiasco for a looong time.
Making EPERM friendlier Posted Jan 20, 2013 8:17 UTC (Sun) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]
Fedora solves (-ish) this with a patch to bash to figure out if that's the cause of the ENOENT and give you a better error message. Other distros should pick up the patch.
Making EPERM friendlier Posted Jan 21, 2013 9:36 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
... or Fedora could send the patch upstream?
Making EPERM friendlier Posted Jan 21, 2013 9:49 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Upstream knows and seems reluctant IIRC
Making EPERM friendlier Posted Jan 21, 2013 10:49 UTC (Mon) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
I think they're trying, but doing something less hackish, not in bash but at a lower level. But they're mostly at RFC stage at the moment (see article above...)
|
|||||||||||||