Re: GNU bash, 3.00.15(1)-release, referenced cmd in cwd executes alternate cmd

[Bojan Land]

> Eric beat me to this. :-) Odd that 'reply all' didn't work for you... 
> ah, but now I understand why (see below). Anyway, last time I 
> intentionally did not redirect to the list. I make it policy to 
> indicate that you should do that, otherwise I am publicly re-posting a 
> private correspondence without permission, which maybe you wanted to 
> stay private. This way I am explicitly giving you permission to do 
> that.

A commendable decision, though in this case it wouldn't have affected 
me either way since I was robbed of my privacy last summer so really 
there's no such thing as far as I'm concerned.

> In this case, yes. IFS is used for word splitting, which you can read 
> about in bash's man page (look for 'splitting' and also IFS) if you 
> haven't already, i.e. it will affect lots of things (so be sure to 
> save/restore it around that pseudoscript). So when I say 'for p in 
> $PATH', '$PATH' is split by ':' instead of the default (which, of the 
> defaults - check the man page for that - the one that usually matters 
> is ' ').

honestly, bash seems more like an OS than a shell!  I so need to study 
it further, though first I need to find shelter and food since Canada 
is really cold for the homeless!  :)

> > So you're recommending a builtin over an external?  This seems to
> > conflict with the statement that which is the best.  A bit confusing 
> > but
> > okay.
>
> A built-in is correct but not portable (e.g. for a script that might 
> be run on ksh, or worse, /bin/sh on not-Linux). An external is 
> portable but not /necessarily/ correct (but 99%+ of the time the two 
> will agree).

What do you mean by "correct"?

Personally, I prefer the idea of a modular shell, not a monolithic 
shell, as it seems to allow a greater diversity on non embedded 
systems.

> > 1. Just to clarify, /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash, just checked.
>
> Yes, on most (all that I know of) Linux systems. It is not, for 
> example, on Cygwin (where it is a /copy/ of /bin/bash), and on Solaris 
> it is a totally different shell.

I'd almost love for there to be a tool that automagically links various 
locations to one path within each distribution, so if you're on a new 
system, you run this little script and it does the standardization as 
per your liking.  Ever used such a tool?

> Hmm... ah, yes, /that's/ why 'reply to all' doesn't work... when I CC 
> you, Thunderbird doesn't know to translate the headers. Bummer. :-) 
> Guess I need to remember to set reply-to: when I CC someone.

That open source, seems to not know much great things, such as toasting 
toast on a pentium!  That doesn't seem like a lot of code for 
Thunderbird to be able to do.  Though I answered erronously to fsck on 
my only Gnunix box and now it says my ext3 is missing metadata headers, 
so I'm using a G4 and tcsh until I learn more kernel/fs I suppose.   
That explains the latency of my reply.  :)