On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:34:31AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:48:52AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > > The test for the presence of dotlockfile is incorrect. It fails to > > detect if dotlockfile is not installed. > > Thanks for spotting this. > > > if [ -x $(which dotlockfile) ]; then > > ... > > else > > echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already > > running aide" > > fi > > I'll probably remove the check since aide depends on liblockfile1 in > these days, and thus dotlockfile is guaranteed to be present. > Objections?
otoh, if command -v dotlockfile >/dev/null 2&>1; then ... else echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running aide" fi seems to do the job. Can you verify? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
