Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr
>>"Clint" == Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:
>> I do not see why we should use which. As I have stated previously, we
>> already require feature sets (set -e in particular) in the new POSIX
>> document which imply the existence of type(1). So type should be
Clint> Can we codify this better?
Codify what, please? I personally use which, since it is
provided by am essential package, and I can live with it eing an
external program, and missing aliases. People can also use POSIX type
(umm, does zsh have type?). Why does this have to be codified? When
do we want to stop codifying every little thing?
Clint> This depends on the user's perspective. I can't imagine ever
Clint> wanting to do anything other than 'test -x /absolute/path' in
Clint> a postinst.
I would possibly classify hard coded paths a bug in the
package, since I may well be experimenting with PATH's. But hard
coding paths is just asking for breakage, in case the FHS or the LSB
or someone decrees the binary move. Since there is no need for such
hard coded paths, doing so is bad design.
manoj
--
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out,
which is the exact opposite. Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays",
1928
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: