From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HlmxM-0004rG-Is
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 10:15:52 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HlmxJ-0004r4-6j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 10:15:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlmxJ-0004r1-0q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 10:15:49 -0400
Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1Hlmq5-0007Rl-QO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2007 10:08:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:04:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] configure
Message-ID: <20070509140418.GC29921@networkno.de>
References: <200705090851.l498pIUN022707@imap.tools.intra>
	<1178718616.6235.60.camel@w4skkosy0000147>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1178718616.6235.60.camel@w4skkosy0000147>
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Joachim Henke <j-o@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Joachim Henke wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 10:51 +0200, Juergen Keil wrote:
> > Isn't the use of "which" wrong, anyway?  
> > 
> > "which" belongs to csh/tcsh, and tells you about csh's/tcsh's idea 
> > about a command or a csh command alias.
> > 
> > IMO, for a /bin/sh (or bash) script, using the "type" command would
> > be a better idea.
> 
> Yes, 'which' is not reliable.

"type" appears to be bash-specific, at least according to the bash
documentation, so I stuck with "which" for now.


Thiemo