Anders Andersson <pipat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have absolutely no idea how to parse the last paragraph, but I > wanted to chime in on the side of Ingo — take his advice because it's > spot on. > > My only two cents would be that checking if a program is installed at > runtime could make sense in a single-script type of tool because there > is a larger risk of someone (future you perhaps) copying the script > over to a different machine, forgetting about the prerequisites, and > then be disappointed after waiting 5 minutes for the tool to do > something and then spit out "oops, couldn't find tool XYZ". Easier to > check first (but check correctly...) Thanks for your reply. Despite my first reaction against the final prologue of Ingo I have appreciated too his auditing and I believe to have fixed most of his points. I also ask sorry for some poorly written pieces of script that sometimes pop up here and there mostly due to the late time *I find them handy*. However, the script has been completely reimagined to let it run smoothly for the web calls too. Truth, at my side here, I can always appreciate a bit auditing on my work, missing it.. If someone own spare time there is a as new as simpler "www-log-viewer" waiting for it same place, https://github.com/par7133. If Ingo appreciate it I can give him 2$ via Paypal (sorry at the time being these are my figures, so don't ask, I simply can't..) Dan ------ Blog: https://bsd.gaoxio.com - Repo: https://code.5mode.com Please reply to the mailing-list, leveraging technical stuff.
