On Wednesday 13 June 2007, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I'm planning something like this:
>
> Programs *not* to install by default:
>
> su
> arch
>
> Here's a minimum list of programs that you may choose not to install:
>
> chroot
> df
> hostid
> hos
Oh, and I'm overlooking these:
groupsis in the shadow package too
idis in the shadow package too
On GNU systems, like GNU/Linux, it is only appropriate to install the
GNU version of these programs by default. The problem with su is that
it requires root access to be
Jim Meyering wrote on 13-06-07 16:05:
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
simply not adding it to coreutils should be considered an option, too.
Opinions?
On W
Jim Meyering wrote on 13-06-07 16:05:
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What do you think of a new configure-time option that
would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
I would probably add "su" to the list, since most installers don't
want the version from coreutil
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
> >> simply not adding it to coreutils should be conside
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The option syntax is awkward due to autoconf's pseudo-requirement
>> that such options look like --enable-REMAINDER_OF_NAME=VAL .
>> I'd welcome a better name.
>
> How about --enable-program-FOO and --disable-pr
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The option syntax is awkward due to autoconf's pseudo-requirement
> that such options look like --enable-REMAINDER_OF_NAME=VAL .
> I'd welcome a better name.
How about --enable-program-FOO and --disable-program-BAR, with the
default being close to what i
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
>> simply not adding it to coreutils should be considered an option, too.
>>
>> Opinions?
>
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:17:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
> simply not adding it to coreutils should be considered an option, too.
>
> Opinions?
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:17:32PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Jim M
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think of a new configure-time option that
> would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
> I would probably add "su" to the list, since most installers don't
> want the version from coreutils.
Sounds good to me. There is t
Jim Meyering wrote on 06-06-07 21:45:
Ouch. This makes it look like coreutils should not install arch
by default. What do you think of a new configure-time option that
would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
I would probably add "su" to the list, since most installers do
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I suppose arch should not be used in new scripts, but that's just
> >> a gut feeling. If so, documentation should make it clear.
> >
> > I ag
On Wednesday 06 June 2007, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Ouch. This makes it look like coreutils should not install arch
> by default. What do you think of a new configure-time option that
> would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
> I would probably add "su" to the list, since mos
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--- /dev/null
>+++ b/man/arch.x
>@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
>+[NAME]
>+uname \- print machine hardware name (same as uname -m)
>
> That should be `arch \- print machine ...'.
Thanks. Fixed locally.
_
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I suppose arch should not be used in new scripts, but that's just
>> a gut feeling. If so, documentation should make it clear.
>
> I agree that the documentation should advise people to use uname and
> to avoid
--- /dev/null
+++ b/man/arch.x
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+[NAME]
+uname \- print machine hardware name (same as uname -m)
That should be `arch \- print machine ...'.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailma
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose arch should not be used in new scripts, but that's just
> a gut feeling. If so, documentation should make it clear.
I agree that the documentation should advise people to use uname and
to avoid arch. 'uname' is standardized, but 'arch' is not
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * src/uname-arch.c: New program, alias for "uname -m".
> * src/uname-uname.c: New file, default uname mode.
> * src/uname.h: New file, uname modes.
> * src/Makefile.am (EXTRA_PROGRAMS): Add arch.
> (uname_SOURCES, arch_SOURCES): Define.
> * README: Add arch to
On 6/5/07, Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] prints information about the machine architecture. Synopsis:
+
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+uname [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dots{}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] example
s/uname/arch/
James
___
Bug-coreutils maili
* src/uname-arch.c: New program, alias for "uname -m".
* src/uname-uname.c: New file, default uname mode.
* src/uname.h: New file, uname modes.
* src/Makefile.am (EXTRA_PROGRAMS): Add arch.
(uname_SOURCES, arch_SOURCES): Define.
* README: Add arch to the list of programs.
* AUTHORS: Add arch.
* man
20 matches
Mail list logo
