| To: | Michael Newton <kimbrr@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which` |
| From: | Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:06:33 -0500 |
| Cc: | nscott@xxxxxxxxxx, pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.SGI.4.58.0803121737100.93991006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | SGI |
| References: | <Pine.SGI.4.58.0803121351200.93987974@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <55812.192.168.3.1.1205300930.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080312012133.e0e93895.pj@xxxxxxx> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0803121737100.93991006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Michael Newton wrote:
> > Does pcp.spec.in only use 'which' in the lines:
> >
> > if which chkconfig
> > then
> > chkconfig --add pcp
>
> No. There are already funcs for getting round a lack of chkconfig
I'm easily confused.
Are you saying:
No -- pcp.spec.in doesn't -only- use 'which' as above
(but also uses 'which' in other ways ...)
or
No -- one should not even use 'which' as in the above,
nor should use the 'type' fallback that someone
proposed here, but rather one should use these existing
funcs in rc-proc.sh, instead.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which`, Michael Newton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which`, Michael Newton |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which`, Michael Newton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which`, Michael Newton |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |