mktemp, tempfile & coreutils

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Wed Oct 17 14:48:55 PDT 2007


The Coreutils maintainers have announced[0] that the next version of Coreutils will contain a `mktemp' binary.  This is good news for us as it means we can drop the mktemp package.  That package has a patch though, which creates a wrapper so that scripts that call the old-style `tempfile' binary will still work.  I offered[1] our patch to the Coreutils maintainers so that it could be incorporated upstream so that we wouldn't have to create/maintain a patch ourselves.  That offer was declined[2], as upstream don't want to be seen to encourage the continued use of `tempfile'.  This is eminently understandable, and I have to wonder if we shouldn't follow suit.

Does anyone know how widespread the use of `tempfile' is these days (for example, do _any_ LFS or BLFS packages call out to it)?  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'.  Neither the original mktemp maintainers or the new Coreutils maintainers seem interested in integrating our patch.  Now seems as good a time as any to reassess the suitability of the tempfile patch.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list