[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:55:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden> skribis:
> On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file
>>>> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the
>>>> right file name.
>>>>
>>> Not in this case. The test is a "spy" check that tries to determine
>>> whether either
>>> (1) the first 'rm' in PATH or
>>> (2) '/bin/rm' *if present*
>>> is deficient, in that it errors out when the -f option is specified and
>>> no non-option argument is passed. If /bin/rm does not exist, it can't
>>> be deficient, so the test correctly passes (I assume that happened in
>>> your setup, right?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> Would it be possible to change these tests to use ‘rm’ instead of /bin/rm?
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>> That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems
>>> where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm
>>> (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH.
>>>
>>> If all you are seeing are few SKIP messages and no failure, I don't
>>> think there is any problem to fix; everything is working as intended.
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> However, I’m still wondering: do Automake-generated makefiles and
>> Autoconf macros explicitly attempt to use /bin/rm in normal use?
>>
> Re Automake: not that I'm aware of. Have you any proof this is
> not the case?
No; I’m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm.
What’s the reason?
Ludo’.