On 21/11/18 at 19:04, Rowland Penny wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:50:42 +0100 > Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote: > >> On 21/11/18 at 18:39, Rowland Penny wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:25:02 +0100 >>> Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/11/18 at 18:15, m712 wrote: >>>>>> Of course we are, why don't you read before replying? >>>>> I can't be sure if you are in jest. >>>> Of course I am not. >>>> >>>> Dr. Nikolaus Klepp asked: >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <dr.kl...@gmx.at> >>>> To: dng@lists.dyne.org >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:22:00 +0100 >>>> Message-Id: <201811211722.00535.dr.kl...@gmx.at> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why would anybody hardcode the link to sed in the first place? >>>> Isn't that what $PATH is all about? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And I answered with a case where the absolute placement of the >>>> sed executable does matter and cannot be circumvented with a PATH >>>> setting or the use of commands like which or command. >>>> >>>> >>>> What is not clear? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You got the context wrong, or as we say here in the UK, you got the >>> wrong end of the stick ;-) >>> >>> He asked 'Why would anybody hardcode the link', what has this to do >>> with a shebang ? >> >> A shebang is an often used construct that would be broken were not a >> link in place. >> >> Do you need a drawing to see why? >> >> >>> You are quite correct, you cannot replace a shebang with 'which', >>> but then, this was never the problem. >> >> Yes, it is. Because shebangs do require a link from /usr/bin >> to /bin were files moved from /bin to /usr/bin. >> >> >>> Did you read the debian bugreport ? >> >> Yes, I did. >> >> Now you, how would you have a #!/bin/Rscript script work without a >> filesystem-level link? >> >> > I repeat, the problem in the bugreport had nothing to do with a shebang,
The bug report is about Rscript. Do you know what that is for? It's long being considered good practice on updates letting the system be changed in such a way as to let the old scripts work without modifications. That was a golden rule under Solaris for instance, which explains why they put in /bin and /usr/bin old, non POSIX compliant versions of shells, sed, awk and so forth, with the revised, improved, X/Open standard utilities installed in /usr/xpg4/bin/. Debian broke this golden Unix rule, putting the link on the filesystem from /usr/bin to /bin is the correct VUA remedy to the issue they introduced, because it shifts the responsibility in maintaining the system integrity on updated to the distribution development team, not on users. You're free to disagree of course, but please let me kow if and where are ever you going to take responsibility in maintaining a GNU/Linux distribution or a major package. Or maybe you're going to be a systemd developer, in which case it would be quite all right and actually pretty appropriate. -- Alessandro Selli <alessandrose...@linux.com> VOIP SIP: dhatarat...@ekiga.net Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key: BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
