[OE-core] [PATCH] mktemp: remove

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:47 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/18/18 11:30 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > On 18 June 2018 at 17:25, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/18/18 10:48 AM, Ross Burton wrote:
> >>> Both busybox and coreutils provide mktemp, and the only difference between those
> >>> (and standalone mktemp) is that coreutils supports --suffix.
> >>
> >> I've got no objections to this.. but I do have a question/comment.
> >>
> >> Is mktemp packaged by itself in coreutils or do you need the larger coreutils to
> >> get it.  (I'm not actually sure it matters, but in the past there were some
> >> cases where you might not want all of coreutils, but wanted mktemp...)
> >
> > We don't have a small or large coreutils.  Maybe that's a WR-ism?
>
> No, I'm referring to system sizes..  there have been systems developed in the
> past that use a number of alternative command line tooling.
>
> I thought coreutils was broken into various packages already.  It may have been
> in the past and is no longer broken up as well -- or maybe the busybox version
> was lacking some argument mktemp (coreutils mktemp) supports.
>
> The point is there was a reason for it in smaller systems, and that reason may
> not exist any longer -- but just be aware it might come back up as a problem.

The affected case is where busybox one is not used and coreutils is
not used but mktemp is used. I think its in best interest for this
usecase to move on to accept a maintained version of utility, be it
from coreutils or busybox.