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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cu shell 
Sujet : Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?
De : cross (at) *nospam* spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Groupes : comp.unix.shell
Date : 24. Jan 2025, 14:46:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID : <vn05ji$r20$1@reader2.panix.com>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
In article <vmu94j$1q2lp$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23.01.2025 17:47, Dan Cross wrote:
[snip]
 
: term; echo $HOME
/home/cross
: term; pwd
/home/cross
: term; echo echo xyzzy >bin/quux
: term; chmod +x bin/quux
: term; which quux
/home/cross/bin/quux
: term; quux
xyzzy
: term; exec ksh
: term; export PATH=~/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
: term; echo $PATH
/home/cross/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
: term; which quux
/home/cross/bin/quux
: term; quux
xyzzy
: term; export PATH="$HOME/bin:/bin:/usr/bin"
: term; echo $PATH
/home/cross/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
: term; which quux
/home/cross/bin/quux
: term; quux
xyzzy
: term; export PATH="~/bin:/bin:/usr/bin"
: term; echo $PATH
~/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
: term; which quux
: term; quux
ksh: quux: not found
: term; exec /usr/pkg/bin/bash
: term; echo $PATH
~/bin:/bin:/usr/bin
: term; which quux
: term; quux
xyzzy
: term;
>
Bash behaves strange here; 'which' doesn't find the executable but
nonetheless bash executes it, shows its output?

Bash doesn't behave strangely here at all.  Outside of its POSIX
mode, it's free to implement whatever behavior it likes with
respect to `~` expansion, and this is the behavior the author
has chosen.

But, critically, that does not mean that the programs _that it
invokes_ have to do the same.  So while `bash` can perform `~`
expansion on the components of $PATH when it's searching for a
program to execute, one shouldn't be surprised if other programs
don't do the same thing.

As was pointed out, `which` is not built into the shell, and
therefore, not obligated to follow `bash`'s expansion rules.

I've changed the above test frame to remove some unnecessary parts
to eliminate distracting complexity. The output for three shells:

Sorry, I think this cuts too much: the point was to show how the
different shells handle `~` in different contexts; the actual
strings that are in `$PATH` are important to show.

[snip]
I suppose the moral is, for maximal portability, prefer using
$HOME (or another similar variable) to `~` when setting $PATH
unless you're doing so in a context where you are sure that `~`
will be expanded during assignment.
>
IMO, the consequence is to not quote a tilde expression in the first
place if you want it expanded in a shell variable. *Violating* that
rule will _in Bash_ produce this strange effect (in the given setup).
>
To me it appears that not finding (by 'which') an executable but
executing it nonetheless qualifies as a bug [in Bash].

Not a bug, but yes, surprising.

- Dan C.


Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Jan 25 * Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?84Dan Cross
14 Jan 25 +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Richard Harnden
20 Jan 25 `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?82Wayne
20 Jan 25  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?81Janis Papanagnou
21 Jan 25   `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?80Axel Reichert
21 Jan 25    +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?7Janis Papanagnou
22 Jan 25    i+* Soft-links to binaries (was Re: Default PATH setting)4Janis Papanagnou
22 Jan 25    ii`* Re: Soft-links to binaries (was Re: Default PATH setting)3Keith Thompson
22 Jan 25    ii +- Re: Soft-links to binaries (was Re: Default PATH setting)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
23 Jan 25    ii `- Re: Soft-links to binaries (was Re: Default PATH setting)1Janis Papanagnou
25 Jan 25    i`* PATH for GUI applications (was: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?)2Axel Reichert
26 Jan 25    i `- Re: PATH for GUI applications (was: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?)1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
22 Jan 25    `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?72Geoff Clare
22 Jan 25     `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?71Kaz Kylheku
23 Jan 25      `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?70Geoff Clare
23 Jan 25       `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?69Kenny McCormack
23 Jan 25        +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?52Dan Cross
23 Jan 25        i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?51Janis Papanagnou
23 Jan 25        i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Keith Thompson
24 Jan 25        i i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i i `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Keith Thompson
23 Jan 25        i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Kaz Kylheku
24 Jan 25        i i+- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Jerry Peters
23 Jan 25        i +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1marrgol
24 Jan 25        i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?43Dan Cross
24 Jan 25        i  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?42Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i   +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?14Dan Cross
25 Jan 25        i   i+* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?5Janis Papanagnou
25 Jan 25        i   ii`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?4Dan Cross
26 Jan 25        i   ii +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Keith Thompson
27 Jan 25        i   ii i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Dan Cross
26 Jan 25        i   ii `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i   i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?8Keith Thompson
26 Jan 25        i   i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i   i i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Christian Weisgerber
27 Jan 25        i   i i `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i   i `* Early history of Bash (was: Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?)4Christian Weisgerber
27 Jan 25        i   i  +- Re: Early history of Bash1Keith Thompson
27 Jan 25        i   i  `* Re: Early history of Bash2Keith Thompson
27 Jan 25        i   i   `- Re: Early history of Bash1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Jan 25        i   `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?27Keith Thompson
25 Jan 25        i    `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?26Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i     `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?25Keith Thompson
26 Jan 25        i      +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?23Kaz Kylheku
26 Jan 25        i      i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?22Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i      i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Kaz Kylheku
27 Jan 25        i      i i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
26 Jan 25        i      i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Keith Thompson
3 Feb 25        i      i i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Keith Thompson
3 Feb 25        i      i i `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kaz Kylheku
27 Jan 25        i      i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?16Lawrence D'Oliveiro
27 Jan 25        i      i  +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kenny McCormack
27 Jan 25        i      i  +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?11Alexis
27 Jan 25        i      i  i+* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Kenny McCormack
27 Jan 25        i      i  ii`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Alexis
27 Jan 25        i      i  i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?8Lawrence D'Oliveiro
27 Jan 25        i      i  i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?7Keith Thompson
27 Jan 25        i      i  i  +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Kaz Kylheku
27 Jan 25        i      i  i  i`* Arbitrary characters in filenames (was Re: Default PATH setting ...)2Janis Papanagnou
27 Jan 25        i      i  i  i `- Re: Arbitrary characters in filenames (was Re: Default PATH setting ...)1Kaz Kylheku
28 Jan 25        i      i  i  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Lawrence D'Oliveiro
28 Jan 25        i      i  i   +- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Keith Thompson
28 Jan 25        i      i  i   `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kenny McCormack
27 Jan 25        i      i  +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Janis Papanagnou
28 Jan 25        i      i  i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Lawrence D'Oliveiro
27 Jan 25        i      i  `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kaz Kylheku
26 Jan 25        i      `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
23 Jan 25        +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?14Kaz Kylheku
23 Jan 25        i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?13Keith Thompson
24 Jan 25        i +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?5Keith Thompson
24 Jan 25        i i`* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?4Kaz Kylheku
24 Jan 25        i i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?3Keith Thompson
24 Jan 25        i i  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Lawrence D'Oliveiro
24 Jan 25        i i   `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Keith Thompson
24 Jan 25        i `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?7Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i  `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?6Dan Cross
24 Jan 25        i   `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?5Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i    +* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Dan Cross
25 Jan 25        i    i`- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        i    `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Keith Thompson
25 Jan 25        i     `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Janis Papanagnou
24 Jan 25        `* Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?2Geoff Clare
24 Jan 25         `- Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?1Kenny McCormack

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal