在 OS X 中的路径上的/usr/local/bin 之前有/usr/local/bin 有问题吗? [英] Is there a problem with having /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin on the path in OS X?

问题描述

默认情况下，OS X 10.6 使用 /usr/libexec/path_helper 添加文件 /etc/paths 中列出的以下路径:

By default, OS X 10.6 uses /usr/libexec/path_helper to add the following paths listed in the file /etc/paths:

/usr/bin
/bin
/usr/sbin
/sbin
/usr/local/bin

这意味着 /usr/bin 在路径上出现在 /usr/local/bin 之前.这会导致 /usr/bin 中 Xcode 4 安装的 git 版本被调用而不是 Homebrew 安装到 /usr/local/bin 中的版本.

This means that /usr/bin comes before /usr/local/bin on the path. This results in the version of git installed by Xcode 4 in /usr/bin to be called instead of the version installed by Homebrew into /usr/local/bin.

这引出了我的问题，在路径中将 /usr/local/bin 放在 /usr/bin 之前是否有问题?Apple 默认将 /usr/bin 放在 /usr/local/bin 之前，是否有特定原因?

Which leads me to my question, is there a problem with having /usr/local/bin come before /usr/bin in the path? Is there a specific reason that Apple defaults to having /usr/bin come before /usr/local/bin?

将/usr/local/bin 从文件/etc/paths 的底部移动到顶部是否有问题?这样做不仅会在我启动终端时影响路径，因为 /usr/libexec/path_helper 可能会被其他资源使用(我不确定这一点).

Is it a problem to move /usr/local/bin from the bottom of the file /etc/paths to the top? Doing so would impact the path for more than just when I fire up Terminal, since /usr/libexec/path_helper could be used by other resources (I'm uncertain about this).

虽然多余，但对我来说将 /usr/local/bin 添加到 ~/.bash_profile 中的路径似乎更安全，这意味着 /usr/local/bin 将在路径上两次.

While redundant, it seems safer for me to add /usr/local/bin to the path in ~/.bash_profile, which would mean that /usr/local/bin would be on the path twice.

推荐答案

没有，也没有.他们只是很奇怪......根据定义本地应该覆盖.

No, and no. They're just weird ... local by definition should override.

这篇关于在 OS X 中的路径上的/usr/local/bin 之前有/usr/local/bin 有问题吗?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！