From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30937 invoked by alias); 6 Jan 2009 19:37:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 30921 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jan 2009 19:37:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:37:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AB160B8018; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:37:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gimrgYYtBH+9; Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4963B2DC.2020606@eCosCentric.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:37:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Dallaway CC: ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: #! magic for finding Cygwin Tcl shell References: <49639C9C.9040607@dallaway.org.uk> <4963A830.6090600@eCosCentric.com> <4963AD4C.9000704@dallaway.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <4963AD4C.9000704@dallaway.org.uk> OpenPGP: id=A5FB74E6 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/msg00008.txt.bz2 John Dallaway wrote: > 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? Portability (or a linux system where tclsh was not installed by the system owner - not everyone's environment is their own desktop). Command line stuff needs to work more widely than Linux. tclsh in /usr/local/bin or the user's home dir or ... > 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 That was specific to cygwin where they kept renaming the tclsh executable for each version. Jifl -- eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071. ------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------ Opinions==mine