220513 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Recently Debian has started to transition away from the "which" command. > [1]
Do we take Debian as a role model ? > 'which' is a non-POSIX command which prints out the location of specified > executables that are in your path. Unfortunately, there are several > versions of the program around which are not compatible with each other. > We package the GNU version as sys-apps/which, > which is in the system set since 2004. If there is a GNU version, that would seem to be somewhat "official". Also, it's been around a long time. > Already in 2007, vapier asked developers to avoid which in ebuilds. [2] There well mb good reasons for the devs to do that, but users may have different needs or preferences. > The replacement in most circumstances is "type -p" > which is a bash builtin command. It does appear to do the same job, but it's more difficult to remember. Yes, anyone could make 'which' an alias for 'type -p'. > So, should we join the "which hunt", with the goal > of removing sys-apps/which from the system set and from stage1 ? > The first step would be to identify which packages use 'which' > and add it as an explicit dependency. > Maybe the tinderbox could help there ? > A bug for this [3] has already been filed by mgorny some time ago. > Unfortunately, the command pops up in unexpected places, > e.g. it appears to be an (indirect) build-time dependency of systemd. [4] > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/874049/ > [2] > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/e04d4db72572dd5fec48e87c6b18c525 > [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/646588 > [4] https://bugs.gentoo.org/502084 Those are a user's reactions. I trust the devs to do something sensible. -- ========================,,============================================ SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
