Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cu programmer 
Sujet : Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?
De : rweikusat (at) *nospam* talktalk.net (Rainer Weikusat)
Groupes : comp.unix.programmer
Date : 14. Jan 2025, 18:16:29
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <87ikqh5n9u.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
References : 1
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
When I recently inspected an 'strace' log and saw the huge amount
of system-calls done for a simple standard command (like 'rm') -
it's more than a dozen! and most lead just to ENOENT - I wondered
about the default PATH definition which is for my system
  /usr/lib/lightdm/lightdm
  /usr/local/sbin
  /usr/local/bin
  /usr/sbin
  /usr/bin
  /sbin
  /bin
  /usr/games
(here I'm omitting my own additions, '~/bin' and '.', and I separated
them, one on each line for a better visualization of the "problem" or,
maybe better, for the "questions".)
>
The above PATH components are for a terminal running under some
window manager, a plain console window will not show the 'lightdm'
entry (but I rarely work on plain consoles).
>
This raises a few questions, and someone may shed some light on the
rationale for above default settings... (and how to "fix" it best)

Why do you want to change that? At worst, this will make seven execve to
execute binary. Usually, it will rather be 4. That's not going to take a
noticeable amount of time.

As far as I could determine, some sort of path searching has existed
since the 6th edition of UNIX (., /bin and /usr/bin hardcoded in the
shell) and in its present form, it has existed since the 7th edition of
UNIX. Which means PATH searching was used on PDP-11 16-bit minicomputers
in the 1970s. It didn't cause performance problems back
then and will thus certainly don't cause any today.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Jan 25 * Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?17Janis Papanagnou
14 Jan 25 +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Dan Cross
14 Jan 25 `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?15Rainer Weikusat
14 Jan 25  +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kaz Kylheku
14 Jan 25  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?13Rainer Weikusat
15 Jan 25   +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Dan Cross
15 Jan 25   `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?11Rainer Weikusat
15 Jan 25    `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?10Rainer Weikusat
16 Jan 25     `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?9Janis Papanagnou
16 Jan 25      +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Dan Cross
16 Jan 25      +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?4Rainer Weikusat
19 Jan 25      i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Janis Papanagnou
19 Jan 25      i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Rainer Weikusat
20 Jan 25      i  `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Keith Thompson
16 Jan 25      +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Waldek Hebisch
16 Jan 25      i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Rainer Weikusat
19 Jan 25      `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal