From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21748 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2015 22:49:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 20380 Received: (qmail 25031 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2015 22:49:49 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gOMKPm9wyanT1nPpRRg7iK/WaEKtAi0Piu2BcVb5oK0=; b=QOBK8KYRvPZOBV+rTAQNgOA5fTk4C3Wo1Lbkwen3/Myxc/fvzi+q2xpXUQaL8W2/NJ 0W7SUySekNKMJeP4LuDzJGmLmmmbPIafFVsjLd2Y7AqaflG6Kk3ozYuDJXffJUZBTyyV sP1bUCzMKpMh4n6LFYQwp79JmYohaXL0aw+d6JXv4lF5SE3lL6BE5AXZBeR+bPcYff8o ezrp40YcRRcPMO5iCCVOtuFCwuDDCBzYqyz3dmexh19D8NutaHfXj+LeWmIU0Zbic7FN KU/BlFVLeFQjizggxMZ8tQepbGb8DwRcYSEZOZfbJC08xO5bP4l5pLEPbYGsd4ZFTXgS PyVA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlUyJY79FJy+FK3LNAmmOHbjo/ZhTaOLyQG5U6jW+q44A/ycb5l9BDcuQnz8Imx3zrZFqMV MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.2.2 with SMTP id 2mr5867805laq.58.1438382987411; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:49:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55BBF6BD.9030702@apjanke.net> References: <55BBE31C.5050909@apjanke.net> <55BBF6BD.9030702@apjanke.net> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:49:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PSA: Mac OS X El Capitan upgrade might break your $PATH From: Kurtis Rader To: Andrew Janke Cc: Mikael Magnusson , Zsh Users Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6470043222051c33a34d --089e013c6470043222051c33a34d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Janke wrote: > That path_helper output doesn't look random or hash based. That looks like: > [snip] > The man page could stand to be more thorough and clear, but I don't think > it's randomly rearranging your path. And the `man path_helper` page does > indicate where the default paths come from, though it's buried a few > paragraphs down. > Yes, your analysis appears correct. In all likelihood the program is working as intended. Clearly the man page does not match the actual behavior as the very first sentence says "...appends their contents to the PATH...". The man page says nothing at all about the sequence the directories appear being changed. And while the man page goes on to explain that the "default PATH ... values are obtained from /etc/paths..." that is misleading. The use of the word "default" implies to me that if the current PATH already contains those directories the existing PATH will be used as is. Yet I think we can all agree that the man page is crap and the design of path_helper is crap :-) -- Kurtis Rader Caretaker of the exceptional canines Junior and Hank --089e013c6470043222051c33a34d--