Re: GNU bash, 3.00.15(1)-release, referenced cmd in cwd executes alternate cmd

[Matthew Woehlke]

Бојан Ландекић wrote:
> On 27-Feb-07, at 2:26 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > IIRC we were talking about why e.g. 'ls' would not run 'which ls', 
> > right? In that case "correct" could be said to mean that 'which <foo>' 
> > ("which" is assumed to execute in a new environment, that is it is not 
> > implemented as a shell alias or shell function) and 'type foo' agree. 
> > This does not happen if (as I just experienced) you start bash, run 
> > the command, then install a new version of that command in a 
> > different, but also-in-PATH location.
>
> That is sort of what I reported as a bug when i started this email 
> thread.  Do you consider this a bug, incorrect behavior, a feature 
> result or something else?  It's not expected behavior from my miniscule 
> bash experience.

It (bash's hashing) is a "feature" :-). I forget if you can turn it off 
or not, though.

> > No, but I maintain a small login script and a much larger toolchain of 
> > (mostly-) GNU software that achieves approximately the same effect. 
> > :-) But it doesn't really help with "true portability", since you then 
> > depend on that particular toolchain being present. It's great for 
> > personal use and build systems, though, where you can enforce its 
> > availability.
>
> Is bash truly portable (self-contained)?  Is it possible to put bash on 
> some portable media and use it on a system that is bash-less without 
> worrying about dependencies?

Not unless you build it statically, it isn't. :-) Although I think if 
you build bash it gives you all the libraries you need except for libc 
(or your OS's equivalent). IOW if you have an entire bash install on 
your 'portable media', you should be able to run that bash on any system 
the same as, or newer than, your build system.

--
Matthew
"There's nothing in the universe so permanent as a temporary government 
agency." -- Phil Geusz