On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 06:41:02PM -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > I think we've given plenty of time for any users of the `tempfile' > > binary to have been updated now, so any remaining users should be > > patched to use `mktemp'. > > That's my first thought as well, but I don't know for sure how many > users there are. It looks like "none during installation", but who > knows if that's actually true. Yeah, I was going to say that none of my logs show it, but as to what happens at runtime, who knows. I think we're far enough away from a release that maybe we should just try without it, to see what breaks ? Or, perhaps a dummy version of 'tempfile' that will write a rude message to stderr and end in failure ? But, I'm half expecting that anything using tempfile will fall back to even-less-safe predefined file names if tempfile is either not present or if it returns an error.
ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
