Bug#291026: acknowledged by developer (Why is this a bug?)
> Why should policy example follow some other code out there,
> especially if the examples shown in policy are correct? And it has
> not been shown that which messes up, command -v would work
> differently, but not which.
I was shown earlier than which returns pathnames of files that aren't
executable. However, testing today reveals that which has been fixed in
sarge, so I agree that the report can be closed. Sorry for the trouble.
jdthood@thanatos:~$ echo $PATH
/home/jdthood/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/games
jdthood@thanatos:~$ /tmp/woody-debianutils/usr/bin/which foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ which foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ touch /home/jdthood/bin/foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ ls -l /home/jdthood/bin/foobar
-rw-r--r-- 1 jdthood jdthood 0 2005-06-18
10:25 /home/jdthood/bin/foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ /tmp/woody-debianutils/usr/bin/which foobar
/home/jdthood/bin/foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ which foobar
jdthood@thanatos:~$ dpkg -s debianutils | grep Version
Version: 2.8.4
jdthood@thanatos:~$
--
Thomas Hood <jdthood@aglu.demon.nl>
Reply to: