tech-userlevel archive

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

Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?

To: tech-userlevel%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 14:31:32 +0200

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 02:29:07PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> I'm not sure. There is normally no way to force an empty environment
> variable, so if you want to not use PATH, the behavior of the current
> code is more useful.

But you can then just use posix_spawn() instead.

Martin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger

References:
- posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
  - From: Robert Elz
- Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
  - From: Martin Husemann
- Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger

Prev by Date: Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
Next by Date: Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
Previous by Thread: Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
Next by Thread: Re: posix_spawnp() and PATH - change code or manual ?
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index