> I don't have what? which is present, either as a builtin, or > provided by an essential package. What exactly do I not have?
You don't have a standard interface. Any POSIX-compliant shell could easily implement a 'which' builtin that returns success no matter what. This would not violate POSIX. This would not violate Debian policy. Some postinsts might stop working properly. Common sense might save you on this one. > Oh? How is it not POSIX? type is X/Open. > Then we should stop right here, since that is an impossible goal. That doesn't necessarily follow. > Yes. File bugs. It would be silly to mass-file bugs if there's going to be a modification of policy in the near future. > File bugs. fix things. More documents saying this is wrong > does not fix any bugs. Policy already talks about POSIX /bin/sh, yet > another document just adds to the ossification, and solves nothing. You seem to be happily ignoring the fact that certain people object to the dearth of features in POSIX sh. > Yeah, lefe sucvks, doesn't it? And damn Heisenburg. Lefe certainly does sucvk. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
