Hi Laurent, On 27 May 2016 at 13:04, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some people think of putting all the execline binaries into their own > directory, and make execlineb a wrapper that prepends PATH with that > directory. That's not a bad idea, *but* s6, s6-rc, and potentially other > future packages, rely on execline binaries being accessible via PATH, so > excluding the execline directory from the normal PATH will break things; > None of the solutions I could come up with made me wildly enthousiastic either. The wrapper sounds like the best solution in my case; I didn't know about the limitations with s6, but I can live with that: the systems where I use s6, i tend to have enough control to not run into conflicting binaries, so I don't need to resolve to this workaround. thanks for your input! Remko
