[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No to StowFS!

From: Richard M. Stallman
Subject: Re: No to StowFS!
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 12:35:17 -0500

    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.

This would be a big step backward.  It would result in gigantic PATH
values, and the result would be that it is essentially useless and
painful for users to set PATH themselves.

Meanwhile, given the way envvars are inherited by child processes,
it would be hard for this updating to propagate down to existing
child processes.

I think that is too many strikes against the idea.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]