From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] execv_git_cmd(): also try PATH if everything else fails. Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:29:49 +0200 Message-ID: <471E136D.4010905@viscovery.net> References: <1192867937.v2.fusewebmail-240137@f> <20071020205721.GA16291@srparish.net> <20071021023614.GB14735@spearce.org> <20071022143637.GP16291@srparish.net> <471CBF88.6020300@op5.se> <471CC380.5030603@viscovery.net> <471DD703.70608@op5.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Parish , Johannes Schindelin , "Shawn O. Pearce" , git@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Ericsson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 23 17:30:20 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IkLhl-0003Pr-7G for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:30:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751917AbXJWP3y (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:29:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751916AbXJWP3y (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:29:54 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:64650 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751758AbXJWP3x (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:29:53 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1IkLhE-00015C-VP; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:29:33 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4217E6C4; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:29:49 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <471DD703.70608@op5.se> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andreas Ericsson schrieb: > Johannes Sixt wrote: >> But I can't think of any negative side effect if *all* exec-path >> candidates are in $PATH. It's important, though, that all paths are >> absolute because the tools chdir every now and then. >> > > So long as they're added in "success:failed:failed" order, I don't see > any issues either. Assuming we stop prepending once we find something > that works, that should be a non-issue. No, the point is exactly to let execvp() do all the work and we don't care which of the paths is the "success". And I don't think that this has any negative side effects. -- Hannes