[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH
From: |
Earnie Boyd |
Subject: |
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:22:27 -0500 |
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
RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Tim Van Holder, 2001/02/04
Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Akim Demaille, 2001/02/02
RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH, Bernard Dautrevaux, 2001/02/02