Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:10:19 -0800 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@mindstep.com> Cc: kientzle@acm.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Making the Packages System Better Message-ID: <21943.973069819@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from "Patrick Bihan-Faou" <patrick@mindstep.com> of "Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:26:39 EST." <01b601c043dd$75345050$040aa8c0@local.mindstep.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> the approach that has been described is sound. However I would also like to > hear about the arguments of people who oppose this. Maybe there is something > that we missed and that will byte us badly at some point ? There are a number of more complex packages which "find" themselves by examining argv[0] (or $0 if, more typically, they're scripts which front-end executables which require significant environmental pollution to run). These packages are often confused by finding their base to be a symlink and will do parent-directory (..) relative path smashing to find their other bits. If this fails to work, you're hosed. These "complex packages" are also not very rare - both emacs 20.x as well as java come immediately to mind, and there are others. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21943.973069819>