'standard' commands

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 06:02:37PM +0700, Maia Kozheva wrote:
>08.06.2010 17:51, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>What is the best way to refer to 'standard' commands
>>such as rm, cp, ln, install, ldconfig, etc. etc., in
>>particular within an 'install' target ?
>>
>>1. Use the full pathname (which seems to be distro-
>>    dependent), or
>>2. Assume they are in the user's or the packaging
>>    toolset's path, or
>>3. Use Makefile macros for all of them ?
>
>Just my unofficial opinion: I think the ones you listed can be safely 
>assumed to be on $PATH, and thus there is no need to write the full 
>path.

Either 2) or 3).

Indeed you can safely assume that all common commands are on $PATH.  I 
believe this is governed by the File Hierarchy Standard (FHS) which 
Debian and most distros obey.

The benefit of 3) is that you then make it easy for your 
user/distributor to override at build time with their own weird commands 
or paths.


Hope that helps.

  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100608/a75c1915/attachment-0001.pgp>