From owner-freebsd-libh Wed Nov 1 1:10:58 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-libh@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289B737B4C5 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 01:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eA19AJU21947; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 01:10:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: "Patrick Bihan-Faou" Cc: kientzle@acm.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Making the Packages System Better In-Reply-To: Message from "Patrick Bihan-Faou" of "Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:26:39 EST." <01b601c043dd$75345050$040aa8c0@local.mindstep.com> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:10:19 -0800 Message-ID: <21943.973069819@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-libh@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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