[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PATH vs. Path ([Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details]

From: David Baird
Subject: Re: PATH vs. Path ([Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details]
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 23:38:53 +0200

> > There are two schools of thought on this: the first is to call every
> > tool on the in the build rules with the tool's full path; the other is
> > to adjust the Path in the make file.
> The second approach is defeated by executables that happens to live in
> the current directory or in directories that windows searces before
> resorting to PATH. See bug 7201 and my comment therein

But at least I am aware of these factors when I write my make file and
build system. I was looking at my build system where I needed to set
Path, and found it was because the tool I was using: Tornado 2.2, had
a bug and actually relied on the GCC compiler being called through the
Path, that trying to call it directly failed. This bug was eventually
fixed. Also, there were parts of the build system which were taken
from the Tornado environment, which I couldn't change, and which
called tools through the Path. Therefore, I wanted tight control of
the Path in my higher level make file.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]