Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:42:12 +0200 From: Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <v03110701b03c0d717309@[192.168.42.51]> In-Reply-To: <97Sep9.174547pdt.177486@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 08 Sep 97 01:50:58 PDT." <v03110704b0396c133299@[192.168.42.51]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill Fenner wrote on 10.09.1997 Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /u >Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de> wrote: >>Or use the modules system (see <http://www.modules.org>). You would use the >>command >> module add <package> >>to add it to PATH, and >> module delete <package> >>to remove it. > >We use something like this at PARC. It's incredibly useful, since >it allows you to have multiple versions of software around and turn >them on or off individually without having to rename executables, but >I'm always running into hard-coded limits. My $PATH is nearly 1k bytes >long, and if it gets any longer random programs start misbehaving in >various strange ways. Same with $MANPATH. Yep, I known that. I've patched my copy of tcsh to cope with PATH lengths up to 4K. There is a #define to change that. ciao lutz -- Lutz Albers, lutz@muc.de, pgp key available from <http://www.pgp.net>; Do not take life too seriously, you will never get out of it alive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v03110701b03c0d717309>