Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:45:42 +0200 From: Lutz Albers <lutz@muc.de> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com (Bill Fenner), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /usr/local/ports ? Message-ID: <v03110702b03c0e1398fc@[192.168.42.51]> In-Reply-To: <199709100435.VAA10944@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote on 10.09.1997 Re: what do you think ... should/could ports move to -> /u >> > 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. > >There is adire need for shell expanded path globbing characters (ie: they >are expanded internally instead of globbed into the variable). Then, as >long as you played nice with the module program installing into directories >that globbing would coelesce modules, you'd be set. I'm not sure I understood that correctly, but if you mean something like PATH=/opt/*/bin then this wouldn't solve some of my problems. I keep multiple versions of some packages (i.e. perl4,perl5.003,perl5.004) around, to this would screw up my setup. That's the main reason why I use modules (plus the fact that you can kill a package with a few well defined rm's !) 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?v03110702b03c0e1398fc>