Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-26 Thread Marc Haber
tags #367333 confirmed pending thanks On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:51:05AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > 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?

Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Marc Haber
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:43:54AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > I am okay with the use of 'which' to detect the command. As it was I > was simply following the published guidelines. Avoiding this entirely > and using the package dependency I like better. But since the test > was there in the scrip

Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Bob Proulx
Marc Haber wrote: > 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? Your new code suggestion works fine and is an idiom that I have used

Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Marc Haber
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 dotlo

Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Bob Proulx
Marc Haber wrote: > I'll probably remove the check since aide depends on liblockfile1 in > these days, and thus dotlockfile is guaranteed to be present. > Objections? That would be fine. Anything that simplifies the script is a good thing in my mind. > Yes, and it also says that using which is a

Bug#367333: [Pkg-aide-maintainers] Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Marc Haber
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 i

Bug#367333: aide: dotlockfile presence test incorrect

2006-05-15 Thread Bob Proulx
Package: aide Version: 0.11a-3 Severity: normal The test for the presence of dotlockfile is incorrect. It fails to detect if dotlockfile is not installed. if [ -x $(which dotlockfile) ]; then ... else echo >&2 "no dotlockfile binary in path, not checking for already running aide"