Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:25:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam Schlegel To: Earnie Boyd cc: tsfu AT graduate DOT hku DOT hk, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com, jason_fu AT hkmc DOT com DOT hk Subject: Re: cygwin 1.1.2: undefined reference to `setlinebuf' In-Reply-To: <20000609135223.29802.qmail@web106.yahoomail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Earnie Boyd wrote: > *IMPERITIVE* /usr/bin must be *first* in the list for PATH. > This may be a stupid question, but why does /usr/bin have to be *first*? Is it not sufficient to have it somewhere near the front of your path, so that there is the possibility that certain programs can override the default ones. For example, I like to maintain a ~/bin directory at the start of my path so that I can easily stress-test programs that I am building, without adding them to /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin. Does this break something that I haven't noticed yet? Or is it just a bad habit that I should break as soon as possible? Adam Schlegel -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com