Ming Hua wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:33:41PM -0700, Micah Cowan wrote: >> Ming Hua wrote: >>> For the sake of discussion, I think >>> >>> #!/usr/bin/env perl >>> >>> will pick up $PATH and is a valid #! line. I also believe this is widely >>> used. >> Yes, it will. But isn't that a somewhat silly suggestion considering the >> context? If /usr/bin/perl were "bad" then /usr/bin/env would be just as >> "bad", it seems to me... > > That's not the point. > > Fergal's argument is, if you think scripts honoring the $PATH variable > and use the binaries /usr/local/bin/ is a feature because it respects > the user preference, you should also think using "#!/usr/bin/env perl" > instead of "#!/usr/bin/perl" a feature as well, for the same reason. > And I think it's a valid argument.
But why should it apply to perl and not to env? What if you have a broken env in /usr/local/bin? I actually thing that /usr/bin/env is probably preferable, though: but /usr/bin/perl has too strong a tradition behind it. I have noticed that a decent number of python programmers do it that way. I actually see both sides of the argument. Perhaps there should be a single location for a base "restricted path" to be stored, and modifications would be made from that, if necessary. I would probably agree that /usr/local/bin shouldn't be in there by default. -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
