Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Why these program need './'? Date: 28 Jun 2011 15:51:32 GMT Organization: None Lines: 37 Message-ID: <96ubk3Fdp3U2@mid.individual.net> References: <9860fe23-204a-4c07-9d2e-e3479d096a3c@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <96sbqbF4fuU3@mid.individual.net> <87wrg6z5ux.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> X-Trace: individual.net cea8PhowjM089V1/u0/yqgbnXikXpgNnAMhEWPp35KC8DLzN1a X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:lUVRrgE5J4N9bLKbwU6qxeyWsV4= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.misc:1500 In article <87wrg6z5ux.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > blmblm@myrealbox.com writes: > > unruh wrote: > >> On 2011-06-26, Todd Carnes wrote: > >>> On Fri, 13 May 2011 13:02:52 +0200, David Brown wrote: > > >>>> Typing "./" before programs in your current directory is hardly a > >>>> hardship - but if it is, put . in your $PATH if you want. It's /your/ > >>>> machine, and /your/ choice. > >>> > >>> It may not be a hardship, but it's certainly an annoyance. > >> > >> Why? You surely have your runnable programs in specific directories. JUt > >> put them into your path. Having runable probramms scattered all over > >> hell's half acre is even more of an annoyance. > > > > I guess if you don't do much code development that might be true, > > but, um, surely if you're writing code (including shell scripts), > > executing files in the current directory, or a nearby directory, is > > something you're going to do a lot? I don't mind including the "./", > > and in fact it avoids any possible ambiguity, but the idea that *all* > > executables live in directories in $PATH seems -- wrong. ? > > So you either type suitable relative paths (quite possibly not "./", in > a nontrivial project the executables may well not be in the top level) > or transiently add those directories to $PATH (something I usually only > do in test scripts). None of this is rocket science. Oh sure. The point I was trying to make is that the comment about not scattering executable files all over seemed aimed more at people who do not regularly develop code. (I sometimes have to remind myself that most users are probably in that category!) -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.