Re: fedora 42 doesn't have awk: how to deal with autoconf subst?

>>>>> "PH" == Perry Hutchison <[email protected]> writes:

PH> James Cloos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> should the scripts also check for 'busybox awk' in $PATH?

PH> Do they check for other commands that way?

PH> It should not be necessary, unless we want to allow for a
PH> busybox that is installed strangely.

it is not strange to install busybox w/ just a single link in bin, ie
w/o sym- or hard-links for each of the commands.  it is the default, for
example, on gentoo.  and looks to be so on debian, too.

and it seems likely that dists trying to reduce base size may turn to bb
to cover those utilities.

but i do not use rpm dists and so have no idea whether fedora includes
bb in its base install.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <[email protected]>
            OpenPGP: https://jhcloos.com/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc