> Umm, say what? You mean you want to test for presence of > multiple commands and execute one or more? (not something you covered > origiannly, but in that case go to case H
I'm hypothesizing. I can think of no real-world examples where I'd need to do anything fancy here. > And what is the root cause of this problem? Seems like this is > a bug somewhere, and should be fixed. The root cause is POSIX-incompliance in the postinst. 'command -v', in particular. > Yes, if proposals like yours take effect. Stuff that has > worked for 30 years in UNIX is just to be tossed aside. NIH. No, not if. Now. Try it. You'll get very inconsistent results. > Fair enough. It is an utility provided by an essential > package, and has a man page. If that is not good enough, use > type. Surely people can manage their packages without having > everything in policy? If I am filing bugs against scripts that use 'command -v', I'm certainly going to file bugs against those that use 'type'. > I am not sure this is likely to happen. I certainly do not see > a consensus emerging. You may have better luck getting it into the > Best Practices book. I have no interest in getting these extensions mandated. I would prefer that either the scripts or policy move toward the other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
