From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Oct 5 1:34:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from compass.OregonVOS.net (compass.oregonvos.net [159.121.170.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CE715565 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:34:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from th@huppi.com) Received: from sis.huppih.com (ppp1-ast.orednet.org [159.121.170.200]) by compass.OregonVOS.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA04581; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (th@localhost) by sis.huppih.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA06447; Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:48:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from th@huppi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: sis.huppih.com: th owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 01:48:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Huppi X-Sender: th@sis.huppih.com Reply-To: Tom Huppi To: chris@tourneyland.com Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.3-Release - problem with PATH? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19991005010621.008fb560@mail.9netave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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