[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
Thomas Bushnell BSG |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:54:35 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Michael Heath <mike.thomas.heath@gmail.com> writes:
> The current plan takes a package and makes it's bin/ directory appear
> to be included in /bin, takes the package's usr/ directory and makes
> it appear to be included in /usr, and so on. 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.
PATH variables are such a bad idea. They seem so nice and elegant,
but they are horrible ways to slow systems down, and introduce so many
difficult-to-diagnose bugs.
Like /usr, we can't make them go away, but we certainly can avoid
relying on them and making the situation worse.
Thomas
- Re: No to StowFS!, (continued)
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Michael Heath, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/06
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/02/08
- Re: No to StowFS!,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <=
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/08
- Message not available
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/03