From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sam Steingold Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#7793: inconsistent behavior of exec-path Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:07:48 -0500 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1294269866 2283 80.91.229.12 (5 Jan 2011 23:24:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 23:24:26 +0000 (UTC) To: 7793@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 06 00:24:22 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PaciH-0008Ab-JU for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:24:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33874 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PaciG-0007nC-Pn for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:24:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33377 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pachx-0007ea-NH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:23:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pachv-0004xc-HC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:23:57 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:36056) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pachv-0004xS-Fg for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:23:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PacNi-0006UD-1s; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Sam Steingold Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:03:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 7793 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.129426852524855 (code B ref -1); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:03:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Jan 2011 23:02:05 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PacMn-0006Sq-01 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:02:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PacMl-0006SN-I2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:02:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PacTi-0001iu-Uj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:09:16 -0500 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:43266) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PacTD-0001bZ-KT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:09:14 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41731 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PacSn-0006SC-10 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:08:30 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PacSN-0001Vm-5I for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:07:52 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f41.google.com ([209.85.215.41]:43372) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PacSM-0001Vd-Uo for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:07:51 -0500 Original-Received: by ewy27 with SMTP id 27so7870423ewy.0 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:07:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=SiJUwV0RX+FPwFuwnzr7Vg4iL96UoQS6LaKkktSMQTk=; b=dJaWGlbjJkpbsOYj+0jn2KiC462r39XN2mDJO4iGX/xyykfnodve9AEXk7vQlHohcw r26tWwM2qBBEDM5XgdOzCi9ysx67OGawloIW+2LYMKV/Y1G2Kc0Cycoqozhspd4Nat3d 7SpHlNIQQ3Ux0JPnvcr2k5BuSm23JnFcnD17k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; b=VeYEc1irzORkqnbTLmw/6woxT0/5RjEFO/uRuCVO86za/DNYn9LJV02rsSM6mI5MKD XahMKqzqYU9sGVp/7v2raJpU55YD7Wqw4aTbFaEEQPZYM2UGj1BjQg5upMHTVtQQTbrC x92HtuAZXXxT23QR3SMmW8XevEqbsAigJriIk= Original-Received: by 10.213.17.75 with SMTP id r11mr32376eba.66.1294268868122; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:07:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.14.127.207 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:07:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7jskSJWpPBOZH8mQdBJ7crXsggQ X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:03:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:43130 Archived-At: suppose you have two directories (A&B) which contain two different executables with the same name (N). e.g., find.exe(N) in both "c:/gnu/gnuwin32/bin"(A) and "c:/WINDOWS/system32"(B). if A follows B in $PATH, then M-x shell-command will call A/N for N even if I manually swap A & B in exec-path. So far so good. However, if I run rgrep in "emacs -q", it fails because by default B is before A in PATH and exec-path; while if I push A to the beginning of exec-path before the first invocation of rgrep, rgrep will find and use the good N. this inconsistency is bad and together with bugs http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6784 and http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7785 is causing me much grief in my first encounter with windows in 4 years. thanks. -- Sam Steingold