Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> wrote: > On 04/13, Eric Wong wrote: > > Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Brandon Williams wrote: > > > > The post-update hooks created in t5550-http-fetch-dumb.sh is missing the > > > > "!#/bin/sh" line which can cause issues with portability. Instead > > > > create the hook using the 'write_script' function which includes the > > > > proper "#!" line. > > > > > This would allow later patches to regress a previously supported > > > behavior. > > > > > > I agree that it's silly to test that behavior as a side-effect of this > > > unrelated test, but I don't think we want to lose the test coverage. > > > > I was about to write something similar about this regression. > > The new execve-using code should handle ENOEXEC as execvpe does > > and probably a new test for it needs to be written. > > Would it be enough to upon seeing a failed exec call and ENOEXEC to > retry a single time, invoking the shell to attempt to interpret the > command?
Yes, that's exactly what glibc does.
