On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:04:06PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > IMHO > > There is no need for this. mktemp generates an error message on its > own, so this would only write two messages.
Mktemp might not be available. The || test would actually check wether mktemp fails (not common) and wether it's available. My message is associated with the later. > > > In any case, no use in arguing this when there is so many things to work on > > (and so many similar security bugs to report) > > Right, I just wanted to point out above mktemp behavior, since this > seems to be a common misconception. Understood, but you don't cover the event of mktemp not being available. The bash would output a message but an unknowledgeable user wouldn't know what's amiss. > > Thanks for your great work and have a nice day! Thank you for your work. Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
