Re: Script interpreter locations
Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Should there be a standard place to put script interpreters (e.g. perl,
> tcl, python)? There is a thread on the kernel mailing list about a patch
> to support putting things like:
> instead of the full path to perl in scripts, but it really shouldn't be
> handled in the kernel. Perhaps something should be specified like:
Exactly what problem is someone trying to solve? There is no problem.
Handling this in the kernel is stupid. Worse, it will only work if
your script is running you have one platform.
There is a standard place (for perl, sh, csh, etc.) specified by both
FSSTND 1.2 and FHS 2.0. perl is /usr/bin/perl.
> If the script interpreter foo is provided, the location of the interpreter
> will be /usr/bin/foo.
That's about how it's phrased.
> Or something similar, so that scripts that depend on an interpreter not
> part of the base, there is still a standard place for it.
We don't want to extend the base, so FHS is the place to keep the