On 05/27/2016 01:04 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:31, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Some of the 'built-in' binaries of execline conflict with binaries that
already exist on the system.
As far as I'm aware of, it's only import. Are there other binaries that
conflict with other packages?
I got scared, is what I thought :)
--
Eric Vidal
On 27/05/2016 13:17, Remko Tronçon wrote:
The wrapper sounds like the best solution in my case
I explicitly did not list it as a solution, and I kindly ask you not to
do that. You are effectively removing execline binaries from PATH, which
amounts to execline not really being installed on
On 27/05/2016 13:25, Eric Vidal wrote:
You put me doubt. If my environment PATH is declared as it :
PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin, the first import program taken is
/usr/bin/import, not? i'm wrong?
If PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin then "import" will *always* refer
to /usr/bin/import, and you
You put me doubt. If my environment PATH is declared as it :
PATH=/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin, the first import program taken is
/usr/bin/import, not? i'm wrong?
--
Eric Vidal
On 27/05/2016 12:53, Eric Vidal wrote:
I have installed execline at /usr/local/bin and the rest of s6 sofware at
/usr/bin.
Works like a charm.
It works as long as nothing expects ImageMagick's import to be accessible
via PATH search. If a program makes that assumption, it will break.
--
On 27/05/2016 12:31, Remko Tronçon wrote:
Some of the 'built-in' binaries of execline conflict with binaries that
already exist on the system.
As far as I'm aware of, it's only import. Are there other binaries that
conflict with other packages?
For example, on a system with imagemagick