Le mercredi 30 septembre 2009 15:06:15 Guillem Jover, vous avez écrit : > One of the features of PATH is to allow the admin to override the system > binaries. You had safe-rm installed and shot yourself in the foot when > it broke, the same could have happened with coreutils (less probable > though, but still). > > Programs should be able to rely on a functional rm to operate correctly > (say, be able to remove stuff under /usr) w/o needing to hardcode the > whole path, which safe-rm does not guarantee. That makes me think > having safe-rm in the PATH at all is probably not a good idea anyway > and I don't think we should be required to use hardcoded paths because > safe-rm (or similar) might be there. > > At most safe-rm should explain its flakiness, as rm is a command that > is Essential, and thus should always work, no matter what. Or yes, > taken out of PATH and be used through aliases. Thus reassigning. > > regards, > guillem
Okay; fine for me. I was slightly too fast in my analysis of the problem. Best regards and thanks for your reassigning, OdyX -- Didier Raboud, proud Debian user. CH-1802 Corseaux did...@raboud.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
