From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [BUG] git-am and git-submodule rely on $PATH to find perl Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:40:18 -0600 Message-ID: <20110722224017.GC19620@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <87fwm0inqr.fsf@write-only.cryp.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Simons X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jul 23 00:40:38 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QkOOb-0007i5-C8 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:40:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752442Ab1GVWk3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:40:29 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:48153 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751183Ab1GVWk1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:40:27 -0400 Received: (qmail 24116 invoked by uid 107); 22 Jul 2011 22:40:56 -0000 Received: from S010690840de80b38.ss.shawcable.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (70.64.172.81) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 18:40:56 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:40:18 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fwm0inqr.fsf@write-only.cryp.to> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:35:56AM +0200, Peter Simons wrote: > Both scripts run perl without any path, i.e. they don't use the > $PERL_PATH that was passed at build time. This isn't exactly a bug. The rule we usually follow in git is that you can use "perl" in the PATH when you are doing simple awk-like things that any version of perl should do. But you must use PERL_PATH for #!-lines (because we can't do PATH lookup there), or for any non-trivial script. That being said, I don't see any downside to using PERL_PATH. The Makefile tweaks would be pretty minimal. Want to work up a patch? -Peff