Hi, On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 3:56 AM Laurent Bercot <ska-skaw...@skarnet.org> wrote: > Do not do this. > Several programs, including s6 and s6-rc, rely on execline binaries > to be in their PATH. They will not work if you segregate execline > binaries.
Thanks for this note, I haven't looked at these packages. At first I thought execline binaries will only be called inside execlinep scripts. Could you give some examples that s6 calls these binaries directly except exelinep? > If you insist on doing so, you'll have to make sure that > /usr/lib/execline is in everyone's PATH, so there will be no benefit > for you and more runtime overhead for everyone. > I try this because I find document(INSTALL) says there's --enable-absolute-paths option. And This will ensure that programs calling binaries from this package will call them with their full installation path (in bindir) without relying on a PATH search. So either I misunderstand the document or this feature hasn't been implemented. > There is no reason why execline binaries can't be first-class > citizens on your system. The existence of an "if" program does not > conflict with the "if" reserved word in the shell. Having lots of > files in /bin hasn't been an issue since the ext2 filesystem. > There was a command ("import") with a conflicting name, but it has > been removed. > The presence of "lots of binaries with common names" is simply > not a problem. Sorry I didn't check carefully, there's indeed no conflict binary name in Debian archive currently. -- Shengjing Zhu <z...@debian.org> GPG Key: 0xCF0E265B7DFBB2F2 Homepage: https://zhsj.me