Sebastian Schuberth <sschube...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> David Aguilar <dav...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> + for directory in $(env | grep -Ei '^PROGRAM(FILES(\(X86\))?|W6432)=' | >>> + cut -d '=' -f 2- | sort -u) >> >> Is the final "sort" really desired? I am wondering if there are >> fixed precedence/preference order among variants of %PROGRAMFILES% >> environment variables that the users on the platform are expected >> to stick to, but the "sort" is sorting by the absolute pathnames of >> where these things are, which may not reflect that order. > > I did add the sort (and -u) by intention, to ensure that "C:\Program > Files" (which is what %PROGRAMFILES% expands to by default) comes > before "C:\Program Files (x86)" (which is what %PROGRAMFILES(X86)% > expands to by default), so that programs of the OS-native bitness are > preferred.
Yuck. So even though %PROGRAMFILES% and %PROGRAMFILES(X86)% look as if they are variables that can point at arbitrary places, they in reality don't? Otherwise %PROGRAMFILES% may point at D:\Program while %PROGRAMFILES(X86)% may piont at C:\X86 and the latter would sort before the former, which would defeat that "logic". But of course if I view this not as a "logic" but as a "heuristics" that happens to do the right thing in common environments, it is perfectly OK ;-). I've queued the patches as-is. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
