On Tuesday 21 August 2018 11:06:31 David Wright wrote: > On Tue 21 Aug 2018 at 14:48:25 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 08:02:02AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Odd, maybe apt does not look in $PATH? > > > > There's no reason to assume that, unless when looking for an > > executable (i.e. those things which tend to live in /bin and > > /usr/bin). > > … and then it will of course be hashed, and so waste no time at all. > But Gene's mention of $PATH was a complete red herring. Or cargo cult. > > And consider this: it would be seriously mental to place downloaded > files, which might even have been obtained from untrusted sources, > and stick them in your $PATH ready for execution.
I think would be inventing a new word, stoooooppidd. > > Actually, dpkg's man page mentions $PATH, but only for searching > > executables, which is to be expected. Not for searching packages. > > Yes, and I think one can see why dpkg explicitly mentions $PATH. It > uses a lot of helper programs for unpacking archives, computing MD5s, > etc, and $PATH is where they're expected to be. Expected, but people > using dpkg from the commandline might well have seriously broken > systems with missing or incompatible binaries, and --force-bad-path > attempts to deal with that. > > > To me, it would be a surprise. > > IMO it would be a grave bug in the Debian project's thinking. > > Cheers, > David. -- Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
