On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:31:42PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > Unless policy is changed, indications are that the only packages using > "command -v" by the time of woody+1's release will be XFree86.
Easy now. I don't *like* the construction if command -v foo > /dev/null 2>&1; then foo fi I hate that nasty redirection that is imposed on me. The only reason I am waiting to change it is because I think there's a good chance a knucklehead POSIX or Policy lawyer is going to keep filing or reopening bugs against my packages no matter what I do.[1] If I change it to use "type", one person will complain. If I change it to use "which", another person will complain. You won't catch me doing test -x /usr/bin/foo. I refuse to precariously balance my scripts on my confidence that the package maintainer of the package containing "foo" won't move it to /bin, /sbin, or /usr/sbin. So, although the status quo got a bug filed against my package, I'm sticking with it because the only reasonable alternatives also seem objectionable to one or another of the various POSIX and Policy lawyers in this discussion. If you guys can broker a mutual peace "by the time of woody+1's release", you'll likely find me accomodating to the policy you come up with...as long as you don't force me to hard-code paths to other packages' executables. [1] Unlike some folks in this Project, I don't enjoy the privilege of being able to arbitrarily close, reassign, or downgrade actual, valid bug reports against my package. -- G. Branden Robinson | Q: How does a Unix guru have sex? Debian GNU/Linux | A: unzip;strip;touch;finger;mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED] | fsck;more;yes;fsck;fsck;fsck; http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | umount;sleep
pgpxUPhIIDQd0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
