Hi Eli, On 05/02/18 19:25, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Package: xvfb > Version: 2:1.19.6-1 > Severity: minor > > Arch Linux has imported the xvfb-run script from Debian's package, but > our package dependencies do not mandate that the "which" utility be > installed. OTOH we do have it in our base package group, which users are > expected to have installed, although there is a bit of bikeshedding > about whether these unstated dependencies should actually be explicitly > listed... See the following xvfb bugreport on our bugtracker: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56997 > > All that being said, this immediately made me think, why is the script > using `which` at all, rather than the POSIX `command -v` which is far > more portable as any #!/bin/sh shell has this as a builtin. It also > provides a micro-optimization by avoiding an external subprocess. > > Please consider making this script more reusable by switching to the > POSIX shell builtin. > > Example output on a system which does not have /usr/bin/which available: > > $ xvfb-run some_command > /usr/bin/xvfb-run: line 139: which: command not found > xvfb-run: error: xauth command not found > > (This error message seems rather redundant.)
There are some differences in command vs which, e.g.: emilio@tatooine:~$ which ls /bin/ls emilio@tatooine:~$ command -v ls alias ls='ls --color=auto' Some special casing would need to be added to handle aliases, whereas with 'which' we don't. OTOH portability is a good goal and I'm happy that you're using xvfb-run, so if we can come up with a good and clean solution then that'd be good. Cheers, Emilio
