Comment 33 for bug 12030

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:04:06PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > IMHO
>
> There is no need for this. mktemp generates an error message on its
> own, so this would only write two messages.

Mktemp might not be available. The || test would actually check wether
mktemp fails (not common) and wether it's available. My message is
associated with the later.

>
> > In any case, no use in arguing this when there is so many things to work on
> > (and so many similar security bugs to report)
>
> Right, I just wanted to point out above mktemp behavior, since this
> seems to be a common misconception.

Understood, but you don't cover the event of mktemp not being available.
The bash would output a message but an unknowledgeable user wouldn't know
what's amiss.

>
> Thanks for your great work and have a nice day!

Thank you for your work.

Regards

Javier