Re: 7Zip Problem

Am I really that hard to understand?!

Dennis Lovelady wrote:

Scott, I don't believe you *can* use chroot from software that interacts
with the network filesystems (QSYS.LIB et al) as you suggest. How are you
doing that exactly?

I'm not. Because you can't. Which is why chroot is not a solution to the problem at hand.

You misread me. You mentioned that these packages like to install under
/usr/local. If you use chroot properly, you can (fairly easily) have the
package installed under /QOpenSys/usr/local...

No. You don't understand. It's not the folder that the files are stored into that I care about. It's the fact that they have pathnames compiled into their code. For example, "where are my configuration files?" "Where are my binaries?" etc, etc. The path names to these things are configured at compile-time using a ./configure (autoconf) type script, or a similar mechanism.

That means if you're going to download AIX binaries to run them in PASE, you need things to be found under /usr/local instead of /QOpenSys/usr/local.

I use symlink all the time; I have no problems with it per se. I do not
like it as a crutch to avoid something as simple as modifying the system
PATH.

If it were as simple as modifying the system PATH, I sure as heck wouldn't have created the symlink!! It's not that simple.

I don't use it to appear to join unlike filesystems (tantamount to
installing all your software into a VFAT filesystem and making that part of
your PATH). I like a pure system (as much as possible). You're a purist
when it comes to your area of expertise; this is one of my strong areas.

I don't agree. You are crippling the system for no good reason that I can fathom.

You agreed (I think) that some of these programs won't run under QSH and yet
you install them under QSH because it's easier (that's the way I read your
post).

No. I said your chroot idea would make it impossible to interact with QSH. I didn't say I installed PASE utilities under QSH! I use them from QSH, and why shouldn't I? Having these environments (QSH & PASE) work together is a really GOOD thing!

I am presenting an alternative that allows you to do it right,
keeping the Hatfields and McCoys on their own properties.

Really? What alternative have you presented, exactly? All I've seen so far is "I found one piece of software once that wouldn't work with your symlink idea. Therefore you shouldn't use it even if it does work brilliantly". That's the way /I/ read /your/ message.