Re: Question about enable-absolute-paths option

From: Shengjing Zhu <>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:12:47 +0800


On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 3:56 AM Laurent Bercot <> wrote:
> Do not do this.
> Several programs, including s6 and s6-rc, rely on execline binaries
> to be in their PATH. They will not work if you segregate execline
> binaries.

Thanks for this note, I haven't looked at these packages. At first I
thought execline binaries will only be called inside execlinep
scripts. Could you give some examples that s6 calls these binaries
directly except exelinep?

> If you insist on doing so, you'll have to make sure that
> /usr/lib/execline is in everyone's PATH, so there will be no benefit
> for you and more runtime overhead for everyone.

I try this because I find document(INSTALL) says there's
--enable-absolute-paths option. And

  This will ensure that programs calling binaries from
  this package will call them with their full installation path (in bindir)
  without relying on a PATH search.

So either I misunderstand the document or this feature hasn't been implemented.

> There is no reason why execline binaries can't be first-class
> citizens on your system. The existence of an "if" program does not
> conflict with the "if" reserved word in the shell. Having lots of
> files in /bin hasn't been an issue since the ext2 filesystem.
> There was a command ("import") with a conflicting name, but it has
> been removed.
> The presence of "lots of binaries with common names" is simply
> not a problem.

Sorry I didn't check carefully, there's indeed no conflict binary name
in Debian archive currently.

Shengjing Zhu <>
GPG Key: 0xCF0E265B7DFBB2F2
Received on Sun Sep 02 2018 - 06:12:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:38:49 UTC