Jerrad Pierce <belg4...@pthbb.org> writes: > P.S. Although env is noted as a portability measure for scripts, > it's worth noting that it is reliant upon a properly configured PATH.
FWIW, use of "env" in this way is a bit of a religious issue; some people think it's good and others say differently. My former employer Red Hat actually has a policy against use of env in this way in distro-supplied scripts (instituted after a long internal discussion that started with a proposal *for* always using env). I don't recall all the arguments, but I think it came down to a decision that such scripts should prefer invoking the official copy of perl and not any unofficial one that someone might have in their PATH. Obviously the stakes get higher for scripts that the root user might run, and I think that was part of it too. Whichever way you do it will make somebody unhappy. But personally, I'd rather see nonstandard-perl-location be handled by explicitly putting the right /path/to/perl into the scripts at build time, based on the configure script's determination of which perl to use. regards, tom lane _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers