From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b4846bde7eaac045
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mario Klebsch <Mario.Klebsch@braunschweig.netsurf.de>
Subject: Re: gnat on linux (strange problems and behaviour)
Date: 1999/08/22
Message-ID: <o7uop7.l72.ln@ds9.uucp>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 515835731
References: <37B0B4CB.E15ECC72@billybob.demon.co.uk>
 <x7v1zd95x0v.fsf@pogner.moho>
 <Pine.SUN.3.96.990812004500.14284A-100000@eskimo.com>
 <37B3D56F.AB39C948@billybob.demon.co.uk> <87pv0sm30x.fsf@antinea.enst.fr>
 <37BEA492.413D9707@ebox.tninet.se> <7pmmsv$ro4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: IRD InterNet Services GmbH
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

>In article <37BEA492.413D9707@ebox.tninet.se>,
>  Stefan Skoglund <stetson@ebox.tninet.se> wrote:
>> a software package should never require . in the PATH.
>> This is most definitely broken !!!

>Sorry I do not see what you are talking about. As Sam said,
>if you have a single user machine on which you control all
>software on the machine, and no one else uses it, then
>putting . in your path is not a problem.

But no piece of software should require or rely on having . in $PATH.
So when writing software it is best assuption about $PATH is, that
is contains only garbage, especially do not assume, that the directory
containing your program is included in $PATH.

73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch		Mario.Klebsch@braunschweig.netsurf.de