Re: Execlineb scripts on systems with conflicting binaries

From: Remko Tronçon <remko_at_el-tramo.be>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:17:00 +0200

Hi Laurent,

On 27 May 2016 at 13:04, Laurent Bercot <ska-skaware_at_skarnet.org> wrote:

> Some people think of putting all the execline binaries into their own
> directory, and make execlineb a wrapper that prepends PATH with that
> directory. That's not a bad idea, *but* s6, s6-rc, and potentially other
> future packages, rely on execline binaries being accessible via PATH, so
> excluding the execline directory from the normal PATH will break things;
>

None of the solutions I could come up with made me wildly enthousiastic
either.

The wrapper sounds like the best solution in my case; I didn't know about
the
limitations with s6, but I can live with that: the systems where I use s6,
i tend to
have enough control to not run into conflicting binaries, so I don't need to
resolve to this workaround.

thanks for your input!
Remko
Received on Fri May 27 2016 - 11:17:00 UTC