On 2906T033439-0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
> > Saved to "branden.asc" and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
> >
> > gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
> > gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has b
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:34:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
> > gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been
> > used
>
> This concerns me a lot more than the joke itself or what led up to it.
>
> Does anyone else have this pr
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
> Saved to "branden.asc" and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
>
> gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
> gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
This concerns me a lot more than the joke itself
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
> Saved to "branden.asc" and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
>
> gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
> gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
>
>
> Well, I was able to "repair" and read it.
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
> It was meant as a joke... so go ahead :)
That's why I did not really complain about it ;-)
> Im not sure why he encrypted to you though.
Yeah, I also thought that you should have received this ;-))
(because you asked for it, that is)
Ulf
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:19:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > > Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
> >
> > As a joke...
>
> Im damned curious..
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:19:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
>
> As a joke...
Im damned curious.. what did it say?
--
Michael Bea
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
As a joke...
--
G. Branden Robinson | Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux| Biology is really chemistry.
[EMA
On 2903T152152-0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
...
> -END PGP MESSAGE-
gpg: encrypted with 1024-bit ELG-E key, ID 22CC9EBE, created 2000-08-17
"Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: no secret key for decryption available
gpg: decryption faile
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:55:32PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
> > P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
> > seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
>
> I'd like to see Over
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
>
> P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
> seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
>
I'd like to see Overfiends response to this.
--
Michael Beattie
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Herbert> And this is Debian where we have a policy that says #!/bin/sh
> scripts
> Herbert> need to be POSIX compliant.
> What policy says is:
We were talking about echo -ne, not echo -n
> >
> > You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts.
> >
>
> I have used ash for over a year now as my /bin/sh.
>
OK, OK, OK, I surrender.
I have to admit my experience was rather old
and the quantity of bashisms have sharply decreased. So you can run
a
>
> You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts.
>
I have used ash for over a year now as my /bin/sh.
>>"Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> And this is Debian where we have a policy that says #!/bin/sh scripts
Herbert> need to be POSIX compliant.
What policy says is:
The standard shell interpreter ``/bin/sh'' can be a symbolic link to
any POSIX compat
Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > apache starts up correctly for me on every system boot, and I do have
> > /bin/sh pointing to /bin/ash as well.
>
> My fault. It actually uses #!/bin/bash which it should not anyway
Well, #!/bin/bash scripts are allowed to use bashisms :)
Ulf
> Anton Ivanov wrote:
>
> > If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you
> > file a bug against it.
>
> If you know how to call apache scripts to demonstrate the error then
> please file the bug yourself.
>
> Check before, if you run an up-to-date apache.
I do
>
>
Anton Ivanov wrote:
> If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you
> file a bug against it.
If you know how to call apache scripts to demonstrate the error then
please file the bug yourself.
Check before, if you run an up-to-date apache.
apache starts up correctly
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it
> > > chooses.
> >
> > If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that
> > there
> > are tons things that will break.
>
>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
>
> If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that
> there
> are tons things that will break.
And this is Debian wher
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
> > subsystem. I meant echo -ne.
>
> Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
If you noted I have not u
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>
> Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
> subsystem. I meant echo -ne.
Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://ww
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-)
>
> How does it differ? AFAIK, ash's getopts is POSIX compliant.
Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
subsyste
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
>
> It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-)
How does it differ? AFAIK, ash's getopts is POSIX compliant.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PR
> > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant?
> > >>
> >
> > > I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no
> > > one
> > > will claim it being fullly complian
> Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote:
> >>
> >> Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant?
> >>
>
> > I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no one
> > will claim it being fullly compliant.
>
> AFAIK ash is as c
26 matches
Mail list logo
