On 12:38 Tue 11 Sep , Alexander Aring wrote: > Hi, > > I prefer this implementation than the older one, because it check on > executable(Maybe we add a attribute for that or check on shebang) file and > call found with the full path. > I was thinking about to put this as RFC..., because I don't have really a > usecase for this. > Some commands can do a autocompletion for files that are in $PATH, when > this is needed. > > The naming things, I don't like the name, too. I was doing the naming like > the others functions. > I will send a v2 with a better name and functionheader do not like it is not a justification to move or rename it IT remember the shit that did TI guys on the kernel rename and move stuff because x or y do notlinke the naming Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
