On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jim Davis <jim.epost@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +depmod=`whereis depmod | awk '{print $2}'`
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect it'll be hard to come up with something that's 100%
>>>>> foolproof and respects user's choices.  Sticking with searching the
>>>>> user's $PATH at least won't lead to surprises about which program is
>>>>> being run...
>>>>
>>>> Though looking back at your patch, what might work is to look first
>>>> for depmod in the user's $PATH and then try whereis only if that
>>>> fails.  I'm not convinced that's much better than just searching
>>>> $PATH, but that at least would go with the user's preference first.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Seems like the way to go. Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'll resubmit this and the other patches tomorrow with this
>>> consideration in mind.
>>
>> What do you think of this?
>>
>> which depmod >/dev/null 2>&1 && depmod=depmod ||
>> depmod=`whereis depmod | awk '{print $2}'`
>>
>> test -n "$depmod" -a -x "$depmod" &&
>> $depmod -V 2>&1 |
>> sed '
>>     /[0-9]$/!d
>>     s/[^0-9\.]//g
>>     s/^/module-init-tools\t/
>> '
>
> Looks good, thanks.
> --
> Jim

Thanks to you too.