RE: [MiNT] /proc

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Jo-Even.Skarstein@gjensidige.no
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 8:36 AM
> To: mint@fishpool.com
> Subject: RE: [MiNT] /proc
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konrad M. Kokoszkiewicz [mailto:draco@obta.uw.edu.pl]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 2:05 AM
> > To: Thomas Binder
> > Cc: mint@gfanrend.fishpool.fi
> > Subject: Re: [MiNT] /proc
> >
> > > I therefore ask again: Any objections agains this proposal?
> >
> > What is the difference between fetching a pathname from an internal
> > string variable, and fetching the same from the environment string?
>
> Good point. Lets put everything (NEWFATFS, SECURELEVEL, MAXMEM...) in the
> environment string. What's the difference between these and
> SLBPATH anyway??

That's easy to answer. The SLBPATH is inherently process-local. For instance
it should allow to put the current directory in front of the path list to
enable testing of a local (new) copy of an SLB without touching the original
one.