On Sun, 30 May 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Julian Gilbey wrote: > > > Does anyone expect there to be a nawk program? If so, this suggestion > > > is moot. If not, we can probably just do away with it. > > > > Debian currently has five nawk scripts: > > > > /usr/sbin/mk-accessdb and /usr/sbin/mk-relaydb in sharc > > /usr/doc/texmf/mkhtml.nawk in tetex-base > > /usr/doc/vim-rt/examples/tools/mve.awk in vim-rt > > /usr/bin/zone-file-check in zone-file-check > > > > I see no reason to refrain from keeping the nawk link around. > > I also don't think this is a matter of policy; it should be up to > > the awk package maintainers. > > > > Richard Braakman > > Fair enough. Then I suggest that this bug report is closed: the > reason that we need awk is that some programs expect a nawk program to > be present.
I see things differently: The reason we need nawk is that some people expect a new awk to be available *under the name nawk*. However, since every awk in the system is always a new awk and it is always available as awk, we could standarise the expectations and declare that every time a program in a Debian system needs any awk (either old or new), /usr/bin/awk should be used. What's wrong with trying to standarise things? In a Debian system, we have already standarised that perl should be in /usr/bin. We have already standarised that perl is perl version 5. Why can't we standarise the fact that /usr/bin/awk is a "new awk"? Thanks. -- "839666fca9b21524c0683043770a94e8" (a truly random sig)
