Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 22:35 -0600, dimesio wrote: > > > dE_logics wrote: > > > > > Nothing will happen (and nothing happened), winetricks is only available in the current directory, so it says command not found. > > > > > > > > > > How did you get winetricks? I've never used ./ in front of it, and it executes just fine for me. > > > > > Some distros (the RedHat ones and probably others) don't include '.' or > $HOME in $PATH by default. The first thing I do when I set up a new > login users is to make sure '.', $HOME and $HOME/bin are added to $PATH, > preferably at the right end. Its such an automatic action that its easy > to forget you did it years ago. > > To dE_logics: > > It sounds like your $HOME directory isn't in your search path. Post the > output from this: > > <code> > echo $PATH > </code> > > So we can see what your search path looks like. > > > Martin I've not seen any distro which sets '.' in it's PATH. Also why will I need $HOME in $PATH? PATH for user is - /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin:/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin/4.5.3:/usr/games/bin Also '.' in $HOME doesn't make sense. Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 07:33 -0600, Usurp wrote: > > > > Having '.' and $HOME in $PATH can lead to subtle failures, > > if you create a file that has the same name as an existing command. > > > > Simple example: the updatedb command from mlocate > > > > > That is why, if you're wise, you always run 'which' to check check > whether the script/program name you just thought up is going to clash > with anything else. Its also why I said "add them to the right hand > end", as in: > > export PATH="$PATH:$HOME/bin:." > > $PATH is searched left to right, so doing it this way guarantees that > pre-existing stuff takes precedence over anything you wrote without > first checking for name clashes. > > Martin I didn't know that presidency part, thanks.
