Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:05:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 22:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I would rather get away from this wording totally. > > , > > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX > > | features, add

Re: XS-Vcs-field

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:04:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:13:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> My question was wheter it would be appropriate to document in the >> devref the choices of where the URL for a given VCS should point to >> or

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 22:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I would rather get away from this wording totally. > , > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX > | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also, > | they may use test -a/

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:36:44AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > I'm not talking about the local admin. Right now Debian maintainer > scripts are not allowed to use the "enable" command because that is a > bashism, and more importantly there is _no reason_ to use the "enable" > command because simpl

Re: default ext3 options

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:35:30PM +, Sam Morris wrote: > > As far as I know, neither the resize_inode nore the dir_index ext3 > > option can be securely added after the file system is created. > > According to > , > it

Re: RFC: behaviour of "bts show" command with new BTS default behaviour

On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show" > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so. > > The BTS behaviour of http://bugs.debian.org/ has recently > changed. It used to

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote: > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement... > > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to > declare #!/bin/bash." > > ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a > operator as

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would rather get away from this wording totally. > , > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX > | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also, > | they may use test -a/o and the loc

Re: XS-Vcs-field

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:13:52 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I think you misread my question. I was not asking if a grab file is > appropriate as url target for arch, I believe you in this given that > I'm not an arch expert. > My question was wheter it would be appropria

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:14 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not >>> available from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell,

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:03:54 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Nov 14, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So, what features do we settle on? we can either standardize on, >> well, a standard: POSIX/SUSv3, -- but there are things we use that >> come from XSI. I guess

Re: Virtual package "editor" gone?

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:01:16PM +0100, Christoph Haas wrote: > One or two years ago we added the 'gvim' virtual package and it still isn't > listed. Is that document authoritative? Or is it just incomplete for some > purpose? Or do I need to bribe Manoj with chocolate? Section 3.6 says "All

Petidomo: APPROVE openpkg-users@openpkg.org: Your posting to list "openpkg-users"

Your posting needs to be approved. Reply to this mail and concatenate the two following strings to one large string D833901FDC2CD384 1480CA96780CF54B This validates your will to send and your will to read. You won't have to repeat that action in the future. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

RFC and preliminary RFS: prayer webmail

I have now created a working prayer package. It's not finished, but good enough to show you, fellow list subscribers. You can find it at: http://www.kibibyte.se/download/debian/ Please see the ITP at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=392823 for the full story. The source package

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote: >> No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not >> available from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell, and POSIX >> doesn't guarantee the binary -a operator. > Since all sh's in Debian

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement... > > > > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and > > refused to declare #!/bin/bash." > > > > ...and the fact that dash, bash, and

flock() and sendmail

sendmail defines HASFLOCK=0, apparently because, as configure says: ># flock() doens't work over NFS and there's a rumour of b0rkedness in ># Linux 2.4.x kernels ;( and include/sm/conf.h says: >** NOTE: Override HASFLOCK as you will but, as of 1.99.6, mixed-style >** file locking is no lo

Re: Accepted wine 0.9.21-1 (source i386)

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:20:59PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Ove Kaaven wrote: > > I won't, I package them in order. Lagging behind is just because of my > > irregular schedule, I tend to have lots of other things to do with my > > time, but it has always been my goal to catch up if nothing get

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement... > "I refused to stop using test -a in my packages as well, and refused to > declare #!/bin/bash." > ...and the fact that dash, bash, and test, all document their binary -a > operator as having the same

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed November 15 2006 15:08, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since the file was used to provide both the bash builtin and the > > standalone test, and -a is undocumented in the test manpage, it is > > most likely a bash feature... why not use -e, which is document

Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Accepted wine 0.9.21-1 (source i386)

Ove Kaaven wrote: > I won't, I package them in order. Lagging behind is just because of my > irregular schedule, I tend to have lots of other things to do with my > time, but it has always been my goal to catch up if nothing gets in the > way (and last time, something did, as you can see from my ch

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since the file was used to provide both the bash builtin and the > standalone test, and -a is undocumented in the test manpage, it is most > likely a bash feature... why not use -e, which is documented and > available in dash, bash, and test? That's not th

Virtual package "editor" gone?

Hi, I just received a bug report (#398744) that my package 'cream' should provide the virtual package 'editor'. I checked http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt and the 'editor' package is documented to have been removed back in 1996. Still several packages p

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed November 15 2006 10:23, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:40 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > > * test.c: New file, from bash. > > > > So you in fact _are_ using a bash feature, and there was a time > > when /usr/bin/test did not even exist (but hey, neither did Debian >

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

> > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell. > > This can't be right. For example, it obviously can't be a link > to /bin/csh. > Ok. In accordance with this proposal, this means: /bin/csh will not be in the list of standard /bin/shells. And if a call to the interface of the standardshell

Re: Accepted wine 0.9.21-1 (source i386)

Ove Kaaven wrote: > It's not news to me. You read what I wrote in the changelog, right? > >* This version was released Sep 13, 2006. > Packaged kind of late I guess, I've had disk space issues and stuff. > Yes, and this again made me wonder even more, culminating in my former message. Ac

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hard-coding path is frowned upon theses days and there is no standard > > way to disable a shell built-in, so in practice we are actively > > prevented from using coreutils test and thu

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hard-coding path is frowned upon theses days and there is no standard > way to disable a shell built-in, so in practice we are actively > prevented from using coreutils test and thus coreutils test features. So > the question is not merely what should b

***SPAM*** Re: Accepted wine 0.9.21-1 (source i386)

ons, 15,.11.2006 kl. 18.39 +0100, skrev Paul Seelig: > This version is already rather ancient according to upstream's release > schedule. It was released on September 13, 2006, closely followed by > version 0.9.22 on September 28, 2006 and version 0.9.23 on October 25, > 2006. The current version 0

Re: Accepted wine 0.9.21-1 (source i386)

Ove Kaaven wrote: ... > Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:39:30 -0500 > Source: wine ... > Version: 0.9.21-1 > Distribution: unstable ... > Changes: > wine (0.9.21-1) unstable; urgency=low > . >* New upstream release 0.9.21. > Well, thank you! But... This version is already rather ancient according

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 18:13 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell. This can't be right. For example, it obviously can't be a link to /bin/csh. So since it can be a symbolic link to *some* shells and not others, telling maintainers "you know which ones w

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:40 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:37:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > I'm a little confused. When I use "test -a", I'm not using a "bash > > feature"; I'm using a *test* feature, supported by /usr/bin/test for as > > long as it's exist

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

Hi, my starting point is: 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell. 2. The reasons to alter the symbolic link are legitimate. The rationale is: we do not want to cut off legitimate needs (even if we might not know them). The user consequently must have the freedom, to have /bin/sh as a sy

Re: XS-Vcs-field

[ added bug the bts as Cc ] On mar, 2006-11-14 at 12:55 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I don't have objections (mainly because I don't know what a grab > > file is). More generally though I would like to know opinions about > > whether it would be the case to describe in the developers referen

init script output

Dear All, Discussing a bug 398740 [1] I could not reach a settlement with the bug reported due to the fact that I could not find a clear statement in debian policy (although I think that I saw it somewhere and that is why init script now performs this way) or LSB about init script that " if daemon

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:37:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I'm a little confused. When I use "test -a", I'm not using a "bash > feature"; I'm using a *test* feature, supported by /usr/bin/test for as > long as it's existed, IIRC. [Little OT] Minor historical detail if someone is int

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:13:37AM +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:36:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > Why? Surely it would be useful to know what the differences are between > > various shells. The statement "Posix-compatible" was apparently > > intended by t

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:44:09AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Where is your argument? Manoj asks you about facts and you answer with > "can break". Everything can break if the local admin _wants_ th shoot > herself in the food. I'm not talking about the local admin. Right now Debian maintainer

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:36:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Why? Surely it would be useful to know what the differences are between > various shells. The statement "Posix-compatible" was apparently > intended by the authors of that part of the Policy Manual to do that > work for us, b

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:13:34PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > I do. Debian test is provided by the coreutils package. As the man > page says: > >( EXPRESSION ) > EXPRESSION is true > > And, we have the existing rule in section 10.1 of the policy manual: > > "Two dif

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 07:31]: > On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 22:15 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > The problem sparking this thread and my initial work on a Policy patch is > > not a problem caused by shells with builtins; it is, in fact, not a > > technical problem at all in

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

#include * Gabor Gombas [Wed, Nov 15 2006, 12:05:46AM]: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 12:03:06PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > What problem exactly are you trying to solve? We have a > > working OS now, and have had one for over a decade; and we have been > > using bash all along. R