[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
Filip Brcic |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Feb 2006 01:53:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9 |
Дана Thursday 02 February 2006 23:45, Alfred M. Szmidt је написао(ла):
> Fixing hard coded filenames is easy. One can always provide a /usr
> symbolic link. Infact, any program that depends on a hard coded file
> name is seriously broken.
Most of the shell, perl, python scripts do depend on a hard coded location of
bash, perl or python. Only a few use "type -p <program>" notation to
determine where their interpreter really is, and none of them use "#! python"
notation. I do agree that such a behavior could be considered broken, but if
most of the programs do that I believe that the support for them should be
provided. You can always put in some README file a note that it is not a good
idea to rely on hard coded locations, but...
--
Filip Brcic <brcha@users.sourceforge.net>
WWWeb: http://purl.org/NET/brcha/home/
Jabber: brcha@kdetalk.net
Jabber: brcha@elitesecurity.org
Jabber: fbrcic@gmail.com
ICQ# 40994923
Yahoo! brcha
MSN: brcha@users.sourceforge.net
pgppegM18vEek.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/02/02
Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/02