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 : 16. Jan 2025, 12:51:13
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <87v7ufkmdq.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
On 15.01.2025 20:19, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> writes:
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
>
The PDP-11 can be rationally compared with the situation of the OP,
namely, doing local filesystem operations on a single computer. [...]
>
Since you're referring to me, the OP, please note that most arguments
here have quickly made a relation to a straw man (a performance theme)
or made other deviations from the basic question(s) that concerned me.
>
Essentially there were two questions I had that I can reformulate in a
more compact form as
>
  "Why, in the first place, are all these path components
   part of the default PATH for ordinary users? - Is there
   any [functional] rationale or necessity for that?"

Because someone thinks that all these locations should be searched for
commands in the order specified. Eg, the point of the lightdm entry is
very likely to enable lightdm to 'override' arbitrary user commands by
making sure that the shell will find lightdm-commands of the same name
first.

OTOH, that's pretty much a truism.

>
  "_If_ many of the default PATH components are unnecessary,
   where and how to best reduce these settings to a sensible
   subset? - Without spoiling the system, of course."

As already written above: They are part of PATH because someone thinks
that's sensible. Whether or not they're necessary in a certain situation
is an entirely different question. If you want to work out empirically
what's "necessary" for you, remove them all and add directories to the
default PATH one-by-one as the need arises.

OTOH, what's the point? My flat contains more light switches than I
actually need, with some of them being (as far as I could determine)
entirely blind/ connected to lamps I don't use and some of them being
redundant because they switch lamps on or off which can also be switched
on or off with another light switch. But as they're just sitting on the
wall and removing them would require work, I haven't even considered
doing so.

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