> Have you looked at the script though? This is a really weird hack: > > exec 9<&0 </etc/fstab > > 9 isn't referenced anywhere else... it's not surprising that if you redirect a > non-existant descriptor to 0, your fd 0 will be messed up. I wonder how this > can possibly work on gnu/linux.
Yes, I looked at it. It appears in pairs: exec 9<&0 </etc/fstab exec 0<&9 9<&- Something like push and pop (or save and restore) of descriptor 0. Only instead of stack descriptor 9 is used. The question is why is descriptor 0 closed just before the "exec 9<&0 </etc/fstab". Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
