From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 10 14:08:15 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC58216A41C; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:08:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850F743D48; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:08:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j5AE8BPb011206; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:08:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20050610132339.GC80719@isis.sigpipe.cz> References: <200506090027.j590R2t0070899@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050609003619.GA10578@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050609100815.GB16677@over-yonder.net> <20050609160316.GC16677@over-yonder.net> <20050610062431.GA78875@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050610104829.GA80719@isis.sigpipe.cz> <20050610132339.GC80719@isis.sigpipe.cz> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:08:11 -0400 To: Roman Neuhauser From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.4 Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, Kris Kennaway , "Matthew D. Fuller" , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Florent Thoumie Subject: Re: Bug in #! processing - "pear broken on current" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:08:16 -0000 At 3:23 PM +0200 6/10/05, Roman Neuhauser wrote: ># gad@FreeBSD.org / 2005-06-10 08:39:37 -0400: > > > > I actually have my changes written and mostly working, and right > > now I am reviewing the ideas to see if the design could be done > > any better. > > Well, such env(1) *will* be useful, but recall that endless > debate over "#!/usr/bin/perl" vs "#!/usr/bin/env perl"? That is a very different issue... I do remember that debate, and in fact I was in the thick of it. It's just that I didn't have much spare time to write up code for an alternate solution at the time. Maybe someday I'll get back to that. We *use* an alternate solution for that issue here at RPI (instead of using `env' for it), so I know other solutions are workable. > env(1) isn't very practical when you have programs out of > (current) path (like in SU), but that's just one small glitch > traded for another one. Sure it is. My understanding is that you want to do something like: #!/usr/local/bin/php -n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1 With my new `env' in place, that line becomes: #!/usr/bin/env -S/usr/local/bin/php -n -q -dsafe_mode=0 -doutput_buffering=1 The setting of PATH is irrelevant -- or at least it is no more important than it had been with the previous setup. You were never *required* to use an unqualified filename with `env'. That is the example you see the most, but only because people *want* to use `env' just so that they *can* get `perl' from the PATH. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA