bug-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No to StowFS!


From: Filip Brcic
Subject: Re: No to StowFS!
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:11:18 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.9.1

Дана Sunday 05 February 2006 18:35, Richard M. Stallman је написао(ла):
>     What he's saying is,
>     rather than doing this, you should just have a utility that keeps the
>     PATH environment variable updated (by adding hte packages' bin/ and
>     sbin/ directories), updates ld.so.conf, and so on.
>
> This would be a big step backward.  It would result in gigantic PATH
> values, and the result would be that it is essentially useless and
> painful for users to set PATH themselves.

How about a daemon (or service, or translator, or whatever) that would monitor 
the "/Programs" directory where the new programs are installed. And when that 
daemon sees a new program it automagicaly does a "ln -s" for binaries, 
includes, libraries, etc. That "daemon" could be triggered by the 
installation program, or it could just look into /Programs from time to time 
to see if there are new directories around (or it could just be croned to run 
every few minutes to update the envvars if needed).

> Meanwhile, given the way envvars are inherited by child processes,
> it would be hard for this updating to propagate down to existing
> child processes.

Of course. It doesn't make sense to change the envvars in the runtime. It 
probably could be done, but all the programs that use envvars would have to 
implement some sort of signal-handler that would update internal envvars and 
process them to see if they are useful to the program or not.

-- 
Filip Brcic <address@hidden>
WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/
Jabber: address@hidden
Jabber: address@hidden
Jabber: address@hidden
ICQ# 40994923
Yahoo! brcha
MSN: address@hidden

Attachment: pgpxNss5vrIeS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]