chill wrote: > Thanks again - very instructive, and it gives me something to look into > tomorrow. I know that the path available to a script called by udev is > indeed rather shorter than the one available under a user shell (i'll > post it again tomorrow). But does this make a difference if a command > is part of busybox? If it's part of busybox, does it even bother to > look in the path for a separate binary? Or do I have this wrong, and > the busybox commands ARE all separately linked to somewhere in the > path? >
You answered your own question: the busybox builtins (like awk, sort, not the ash builtins like cd and alias) are found via PATH, because they're symlinked into various traditional bin directories. If a busybox builtin isn't linked into any of those places (unlikely) it can still be run with "busybox cmd ..." if need be. But they won't be found "automatically" simply because they're part of busybox. > And assuming the busybox built-in version is found, what could cause a > built-in command to fail when called in the udev environment (on some > setups), whereas the explicitly specified binary doesn't? > I don't know the answer to that. It's possible that the behavior of busybox is affected by environment variables (I could imagine a variable to enforce POSIX compliance, for instance). But other than that, invoking by full path shouldn't change anything, unless the full path is getting you a different executable (as in the case of the two awks on the system). paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ pgf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58510 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=113661 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
