Re: PATH order (was: sh(1) and ksh(1) default PATH)

[tlaronde%polynum.com@localhost]

Le Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 01:56:11PM +0200, Edgar Fuß a écrit :
> If you need the base version of a utility, why not call it by full path?
> 
> OTOH, if people need a newer version of foo, I install foo from pkgsrc and 
> want that to take precedence over the base version.

If someone wants that (this is making the assumption that this someone
knows that some package is installing a different version of a base
utility; and I very doubt this for some monsters with myriad of
dependencies), this someone can reorder the directories in _his_ PATH
or for some or all of unprivileged users he manages.

PATH is a simple way of managing namespaces (Plan9 has gone far in 
this area of namespaces).

If the user _wants_, he _knows_. And if he wants this for some special
purpose, then, this special version has to be prefixed.

There is no need to fully qualify a core utility, because this is
NetBSD, and by default, one does not need to fully qualify the ones
who belong to the "family": one always use the first name. Others
are opt and aliens and have to be fully qualified, last name
included.

If a user reports a problem with 'sh' this is /bin/sh, and the version
NetBSD provided. If this is something else he has added, he has to tell
where this comes from and he is probably not addressing the bug report
to the right audience.

I simply don't get the logic behind all this... (But nowadays, I don't
get the logic of what's going on anywhere. I'm perhaps simply
too old...)

Don't worry, this is the last message on my part on the subject.
-- 
        Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                     http://www.kergis.com/
                    http://kertex.kergis.com/
                       http://www.sbfa.fr/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C