Re: Support for architecture-independent binaries

[Reuben Thomas]

On 9 March 2011 05:31, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:
> For example, automake is a perl script that however depends on where
> perl is installed and what features this version and configuration of
> perl offers.

It's reasonable to depend on a particular version (as I do in the
example that motivated me to start this thread: I rewrote GNU Zile in
Lua 5.1).

One might, however, object that in most cases that, while there is a
dependency on a particular version of the language, the program is
still entirely architecture-neutral. (This may not apply to automake;
it certainly doesn't apply to libtool, so I appreciate that there are
exceptions.) On a (sane) multi-arch setup, I would expect to be able
to install such a program in ${prefix}/bin, with a hash-bang line
something like

#!/usr/bin/env interp-version

So are you saying it's unreasonable to expect that the interpreter for
a particular program is necessarily in the user's path, and that
absolute paths should always be baked in to launcher scripts?

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org