On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:43:12 +0100 Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/18 at 17:37, Rowland Penny wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:28:40 +0100 > > Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote: > > > >> On 21/11/18 at 17:22, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote: > >>> Am Mittwoch, 21. November 2018 schrieb Hendrik Boom: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > >>>> I read the discussion at > >>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1642443.html > >>>> and it looks as if they fixed the discrepancy at version 3.5.1-2. > >>>> Which means if we want to keep sed in /bin instead of /usr/bin we > >>>> may have to patch both packages sed and r-base. > >>>> > >>>> Or maybe add a symblic link to make sed accessible from /usr/bin > >>>> instead of just /bin. > >>> Why would anybody hardcode the link to sed in the first place? > >>> Isn't that what $PATH is all about? > >> > >> It's necessary to keep script shebangs from breaking. > >> > > No it isn't, ever heard of 'which' or 'type' or checking if the file > > actually exists. > > > > Rowland > > > > Of course it is. If you have a file with a shebang like this: > > > #!/bin/sed > > , which is the norm, see: > > https://github.com/uuner/sedtris/blob/master/sedtris.sed > > , then you'd be in trouble if sed moved in /usr/bin. Well it would if you were trying to run sed directly, but in this case it is setting the path to sed as a variable, so, if the script '/usr/bin/R' used something like this: SED="$(which sed)" if [ -z "$SED" ]; then echo 'sed is not installed' exit 1 fi export SED instead of: SED=/bin/sed export SED We wouldn't be having this conversation. > > > Of course you know you can't use commands or shell constructs in > place of the shebang, you did shell_scripting-101, didn't you? > We are not talking about the shebang, you did know that, didn't you ? Rowland _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
