Probably it's not as bad as I thought in the first place. De-deprecation seems somewhat likely and gnu-which was included.
Still don't like it when "they" mess around with the basic tool set.

Best solution (EDIT:), but bad public relation.

Can't be bothered reading it all though

I regret reading it all. :/

There's not much meaningful discussion - just unanswered questions and disillusionment.

A quick search brings up https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2 … 00283.html, which looks relevant. Can't be bothered reading it all though

EDIT: crossposted, I think my mailing list link continues the discussion at the end of the first bug report.

But anyway this is rendered moot by the new gnu-which package.

So why is the default crappy "which" being deprecated instead of just being replaced with GNU's superior version?

Or is the latter what will be happening but the NewInBookworm page hasn't been updated yet?

https://wiki.debian.org/NewInBookworm says:

But I won't be holding my breath waiting for *every* script calling which to be updated.

which is actually a shell script, so if this proves too annoying you could just update it on your system to comment out the message. And try to remember this if you write a script for someone else that uses which.

pretending to be an arrogant twit

How dare you! That is outrageous. I'm not pretending at all...

Anyway my advice to manually compile & install GNU's which is bollocks because there's already a package for it in testing/unstable:

$ rmadison gnu-which                                                                                                                                                                                 
gnu-which  | 2.21+dfsg-2   | testing        | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
gnu-which  | 2.21+dfsg-2   | unstable       | source, amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
gnu-which  | 2.21+dfsg-2   | unstable-debug | source
$

This was alluded to by the OP but I wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry OP.

Hence GNU's which being packaged up separately. There is no "problem" here at all. IMO.

That's an excellent suggestion :-)

I think this will more closely replicate the traditional output though:

alias which='command -v'

But anyway this is rendered moot by the new gnu-which package.

alias which=type

Problem solved?

But pretending to be an arrogant twit less so, although I can understand that there probably is a constructive basis for that artistic style in your mind.

I am thinking that Bookworm is a release of debian, and as such its developers would or should strive for backward compatibility in as many ways as possible with all of the possible uses of the debian software. I believe it serves the end user community quite badly to make up a "pseudo fight" about which particular software is the better one for some functionality. Especially when it concerns actually removing programs or packages that get deemed to be the lesser good, and certainly where it's widely used software.

I suppose if we keep needing to patch against debian developers' choices, then we end up at that place where debian is no longer our platform. Actually @Head_on_a_Stick, I believe you are well ahead of me there.

Settle down a bit, please.

I presume that is directed to the people doing the whining? I've actually provided a solution in my post that doesn't break the packaging system. You're welcome.

It should be obvious without stupid examples that trying to use a program for something it doesn't do, then it won't provide the output you want.

It's a huge step from there to saying that the program is useless, since then the problem really sits behind the keyboard.

For f*** sake why?

Rather than whine like a little baby whose favourite toy has been taken away perhaps try some research instead?

I've been aware of the limitations of which for a while now and have preferred type for interactive use simply because it's a better tool for the job but I did some research for you (you're welcome) and found this excellent link explaining exactly why which is such a useless pile of shite that should be avoided by everyone:

https://unix.stackexchange.com/question … o-use-then

That is a really stupid thing to do because the debianutils package also contains commands used in the packaging system so pinning it to an old version will break APT once you try installing packages that rely on newer features.

If you want to keep using which you can either package up the GNU version or install it manually by using these commands:

wget https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/which/which-2.21.tar.gz # or whatever the latest version is
tar xf which-2.21.tar.gz && cd which-2.21
./configure
make
make install # as root

And to illustrate just how limited and crap which really is:

archie:~$ which ls
/usr/bin/ls
archie:~$ type ls
ls is an alias for 'ls --color'
archie:~$ which kvm
which: no kvm in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin/site_perl:/usr/bin/vendor_perl:/usr/bin/core_perl)
1archie:~$ type kvm
kvm is a function
archie:~$ which scrath 
which: no scrath in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/bin/site_perl:/usr/bin/vendor_perl:/usr/bin/core_perl)
1archie:~$ type scratch 
scratch is an alias for 'doas systemd-nspawn --ephemeral --boot --directory=/'
archie:~$

So just drop which completely. It's worse than useless.

Hmm ...
No.

It's

For fuck's sake why?

Seriously, just who comes up with these dumb ideas?

which is one of the smartest and most useful Linux commands.

A.

For f*** sake why? Completely unnecessary.
Will this make it to daedalus?

Probably a reminder to pin a current version before the release date to avoid stupid error messages.
gnu-which, which.debianutils ... are there more?