Re: [Nmh-workers] First release candidate of nmh 1.6 now available

[Tom Lane]

Jerrad Pierce <address@hidden> writes:
> P.S. Although env is noted as a portability measure for scripts,
> it's worth noting that it is reliant upon a properly configured PATH.

FWIW, use of "env" in this way is a bit of a religious issue; some people
think it's good and others say differently.  My former employer Red Hat
actually has a policy against use of env in this way in distro-supplied
scripts (instituted after a long internal discussion that started with a
proposal *for* always using env).  I don't recall all the arguments, but
I think it came down to a decision that such scripts should prefer
invoking the official copy of perl and not any unofficial one that someone
might have in their PATH.  Obviously the stakes get higher for scripts
that the root user might run, and I think that was part of it too.

Whichever way you do it will make somebody unhappy.  But personally,
I'd rather see nonstandard-perl-location be handled by explicitly
putting the right /path/to/perl into the scripts at build time, based
on the configure script's determination of which perl to use.

                        regards, tom lane