Re: RFD: Essential packages, /, and /usr

[Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>]

> 	Umm, say what? You mean you want to test for presence of
>  multiple commands and execute one or more? (not something you covered
>  origiannly, but in that case go to case H

I'm hypothesizing.  I can think of no real-world examples where I'd need
to do anything fancy here.

> 	And what is the root cause of this problem? Seems like this is
>  a bug somewhere, and should be fixed. 

The root cause is POSIX-incompliance in the postinst.  'command -v', in
particular.

> 	Yes, if proposals like yours take effect. Stuff that has
>  worked for 30 years in UNIX is just to be tossed aside. NIH.

No, not if.  Now.  Try it.  You'll get very inconsistent results.

> 	Fair enough. It is an utility provided by an essential
>  package, and has a man page. If that is not good enough, use
>  type. Surely people can manage their packages without having
>  everything in policy?

If I am filing bugs against scripts that use 'command -v', I'm certainly
going to file bugs against those that use 'type'.

> 	I am not sure this is likely to happen. I certainly do not see
>  a consensus emerging. You may have better luck getting it into the
>  Best Practices book.

I have no interest in getting these extensions mandated.  I would prefer
that either the scripts or policy move toward the other.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org