Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

[Earnie Boyd]

Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> Alexandre Oliva <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > On Feb  3, 2001, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'.
> >
> > I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether
> > the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f, and test
> > for -d later on, notifying the user and possibly aborting.  This
> > second test might have false positives on Cygwin if x/ and x.exe
> > exist, but I really don't care.  I'd rather warn the user that
> > something bad is about to happen.
> >
> > As a data point to support this choice, directories aren't generally
> > skipped when searching the PATH.  So why should we?
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> /tmp % mkdir executable                                          nostromo 
> 17:43
> /tmp % PATH=/tmp which executable                                nostromo 
> 17:43
> executable not found
> /tmp % which -a which                                            nostromo Err 
> 1
> which: shell built-in command
> /usr/bin/which
> /tmp % PATH=/tmp /usr/bin/which executable                       nostromo 
> 17:44
> /tmp/executable
> 
> Arg...  Is this really good?  Are there any other PATH walking
> programs behaving like this?

Is this behavior due to the hash cache?  What if you rehash or hash -r?

Earnie.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com