pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] installing pcp requires `which`

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@snort.melbourne.sgi.com>
Organization: SGI
References: <Pine.SGI.4.58.0803121351200.93987974@snort.melbourne.sgi.com> <55812.192.168.3.1.1205300930.squirrel@mail.aconex.com> <20080312012133.e0e93895.pj@sgi.com> <Pine.SGI.4.58.0803121737100.93991006@snort.melbourne.sgi.com>
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>