Hi, The Coreutils maintainers have announced[0] that the next version of Coreutils will contain a `mktemp' binary. This is good news for us as it means we can drop the mktemp package. That package has a patch though, which creates a wrapper so that scripts that call the old-style `tempfile' binary will still work. I offered[1] our patch to the Coreutils maintainers so that it could be incorporated upstream so that we wouldn't have to create/maintain a patch ourselves. That offer was declined[2], as upstream don't want to be seen to encourage the continued use of `tempfile'. This is eminently understandable, and I have to wonder if we shouldn't follow suit.
Does anyone know how widespread the use of `tempfile' is these days (for example, do _any_ LFS or BLFS packages call out to it)? I think we've given plenty of time for any users of the `tempfile' binary to have been updated now, so any remaining users should be patched to use `mktemp'. Neither the original mktemp maintainers or the new Coreutils maintainers seem interested in integrating our patch. Now seems as good a time as any to reassess the suitability of the tempfile patch. Regards, Matt [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-10/msg00051.html [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-10/msg00133.html [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-10/msg00134.html -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
