Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Huppi <th@huppi.com> To: chris@tourneyland.com Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.3-Release - problem with PATH? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910050110400.3486-100000@sis.huppih.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991005010621.008fb560@mail.9netave.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 chris@tourneyland.com wrote: > Thanks to everyone who told me about the wonderful rehash command. I firmly > believe it will completely change my life. Maybe, but I have seen it described in association with csh. bash, being backward compatible with bourne shell may not even require such acrobatics? OTOH, hashing the available executable list was presumably done in csh for efficiency and performance so the bash designers may have followed suit? man bash would tell I suppose. > I wonder why more make programs > don't have it as part of their rigamarole? Could a make script induce the shell which started it (it's parent process?) to rehash? Even if it could, it would be undesirable if make was started from a sh I would think. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if you started a new shell in another xterm after make (or more precisely, make install), it would preform a hash as part of it's startup and therefore have access to the newly created executable. This could produce the potential for confusion if one was not vaugly cognisant of the nuances of process creation and shell design. > Maybe it takes a while. Oh well. Sorry to spam the list (again)... I'm just kind of in awe at the briliance of the designers of Unix right now! -Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9910050110400.3486-100000>