On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 21:24 +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > you missed the change on postrm, and BTW I think this is out of the > NMU scope, can we please leave the change > out? > I'm not too confident about it, I would like to just rename the > package and let xnox give his opinion on > the postinst and postrm scripts. > > maybe somebody on -mentors can give an opinion about what is wrong > with this line > "if [ -x /usr/sbin/update-initramfs ] && [ -e /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ]" I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that line. Thr previous attempts at fixing this (using 'hash' and 'command -v') are both bashisms so they shouldn't be used. If you really want to fix the lintian warning, using 'which' is probably the best idea here since it's an essential executable, not a shell builtin. if which update-initramfs > /dev/null 2>&1 && [ -e /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ] Also see: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch06.html#bpp-debian-maint-scripts https://lintian.debian.org/tags/command-with-path-in-maintainer-script.html James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part