From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17387 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2009 19:13:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17375 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2009 19:13:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.48) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:13:22 +0000 Received: from aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20090106191319.WKJK4080.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:13:19 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk ([213.106.92.119]) by aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id <20090106191319.BRKM2093.aamtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@cog.dallaway.org.uk>; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:13:19 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk (cog.dallaway.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by cog.dallaway.org.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n06JDGlN027559; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:13:16 GMT Message-ID: <4963AD4C.9000704@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:13:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081120) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour CC: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: #! magic for finding Cygwin Tcl shell References: <49639C9C.9040607@dallaway.org.uk> <4963A830.6090600@eCosCentric.com> In-Reply-To: <4963A830.6090600@eCosCentric.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-01/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 Hi Jifl Jonathan Larmour wrote: >> Rather than increase the complexity of the #! magic still further, I >> think it now makes sense to revert to a simple "#! /usr/bin/tclsh" >> within our Tcl scripts. However, this would break compatibility with old >> Cygwin installations providing only tclsh8*.exe or cygtclsh80.exe. >> >> Any objections? > > Yes, it may not be in /usr/bin. I don't mind the cygwin-specific cygpath > bits being dropped, but I'd still want it to be found from the PATH by some > means. Have you ever encountered a Linux system where tclsh is not accessible at /usr/bin/tclsh? Or were you thinking of portability to other operating systems? I note your (old) post to the Cygwin list which implies that /usr/bin/tclsh is usual for UNIX-like operating systems: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-02/msg00007.html John Dallaway