Dwayne C. Litzenberger dijo [Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 11:30:40PM -0600]:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:42:14PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >Guys. Once more. Spaces is your problem, not my.
>
> In Unix, every byte except NUL and / (including CR, LF, quotes, and UTF-8
> characters) can be used in a file
Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> I do not know a singel person which open 20 xterms with bash at the
> same time. On my IBM i have normaly 4-6 XTerms open, mozilla and gaim.
>
That's nice. ps/grep/wc shows I have 27 xterms, all with bash running,
open at the moment. Of course, I have far more than
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
[snip]
> I don't care about making anything sh-agnostic. bash is just a
> language; dash is just a language. We don't insist that our C programs
> be C-compiler-agnostic; we don't insist that lisp or scheme programs be
> dialec
On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 06:06:09PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-11-25 00:02:34, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> > PII with 62-128M, fairly common.
>
> ACK
>
> > > For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
> > > is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
> >
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of
Am Samstag 25 November 2006 22:57 schrieb Jari Aalto:
> > I do not know a singel person which open 20 xterms with bash at the
> > same time. On my IBM i have normaly 4-6 XTerms open, mozilla and gaim.
>
> Try developing 10 software packages simultaneously (you leave the
> session open and come bac
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:42:14PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
Guys. Once more. Spaces is your problem, not my.
In Unix, every byte except NUL and / (including CR, LF, quotes, and UTF-8
characters) can be used in a filename, and every string of those bytes
except "." and ".." is a perfectly val
This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said:
> Am 2006-11-25 00:02:34, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> > PII with 62-128M, fairly common.
>
> ACK
>
> > > For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
> > > is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
> >
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Tr
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 2006-11-25 00:02:34, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> > PII with 62-128M, fairly common.
>
> ACK
>
> > > For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
> > > is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
> >
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not know a singel person which open 20 xterms with bash at the same
> time. On my IBM i have normaly 4-6 XTerms open, mozilla and gaim.
I have a minimum of 18 xterms open at any given time, plus an additional
four shells running under screen, i
On 11/25/06 06:06:09PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-11-25 00:02:34, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> > PII with 62-128M, fairly common.
>
> ACK
>
> > > For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
> > > is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
> >
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder.
Am 2006-11-25 00:02:34, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> PII with 62-128M, fairly common.
ACK
> > For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
> > is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
>
> "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And open
Am 2006-11-22 20:52:07, schrieb Oleg Verych:
> On 2006-11-22, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > ${parameter:offset}
> > ${parameter:offset:length}
>
> Here you know what and where parameter has. Is it better to split it?
echo "${parameter}" |cut -c N-
and
echo "${parameter}" |cut -c Nx-Ny
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
> >
> > - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
> > - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
> > - Improving the overall awaress of shells
>
> I do
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 18:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you
> > are asking lots of *extra* effort.
>
> I think the two of you are spending far more effort
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you
> are asking lots of *extra* effort.
I think the two of you are spending far more effort *arguing* about this
than it actually takes, in practice, to keep D
> I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
>
> - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
> - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
> - Improving the overall awaress of shells
I don't care about the "awareness" of shells, no.
If we can suppo
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> > X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat.
>
> What on earth is this nonsense about multiple
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat.
What on earth is this nonsense about multiple invocations? Do you not
understand what shared text is?
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am 2006-11-22 01:15:59, schrieb Jari Aalto:
>
> > The memory footprint[1] of bash is bothering in old PC's, so there are
>
> But what do you mean with an OLD PC?
>
> A 486? Such computers should run busybox anyway.
PII with 62-128M, fairly common
Hello David and *,
Am 2006-11-22 20:06:29, schrieb David Weinehall:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:31:37PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> [snip]
> > ${#NAME}
> > ${parameter:-word}
> > ${parameter:=word}
>
> These are supported in SuSv3 compliant shells too.
Ah, OK.
>
> > ${parameter:o
Am 2006-11-22 01:15:59, schrieb Jari Aalto:
> The memory footprint[1] of bash is bothering in old PC's, so there are
But what do you mean with an OLD PC?
A 486? Such computers should run busybox anyway.
For example my IBM TP570 (PII/366MHz/192MB)
is happy with /bin/bash and fast enough.
> rea
Am 2006-11-21 11:06:23, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Nov 20, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Debian Users! - I have read it even on THIS list,
> > that some peoples remove it since it is to huge.
> People are stupid. Next.
N.C. except :-)
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Mi
On 2006-11-22, Michelle Konzack wrote:
[]
> I am using things like
>
> Arrays
> ${#NAME}
In dash there is one, but i don't know about `*' and `@' there.
> ${parameter:-word}
> ${parameter:=word}
Both work.
> ${parameter:offset}
> ${parameter:offset:length}
Here you know what and w
On 2006-11-22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Oleg Verych
>
>| o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp
>
> This is in no way equivalent (with dash):
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ set -- "abcd efg" "hij"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $@
> abcd efg hij
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:\
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:31:37PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
[snip]
> ${#NAME}
> ${parameter:-word}
> ${parameter:=word}
These are supported in SuSv3 compliant shells too.
> ${parameter:offset}
> ${parameter:offset:length}
These are not.
> disown
You actually use job-control i
Am 2006-11-20 02:48:10, schrieb Oleg Verych:
> On 2006-11-18, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Regarding the discusion about POSIX and sh I have a grave problem.
> >
> > My scripts (or better programs) are using #!/bin/bash because I use
> > BASH specific extensions.
>
> Please, list the
* Oleg Verych
| o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp
This is in no way equivalent (with dash):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ set -- "abcd efg" "hij"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $@
abcd efg hij
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ echo $1
abcd efg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w$ tmp="$@"
[EM
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 10:12:14AM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On 2006-11-21, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Oleg Verych writes ("Re: Question about "Depends: bash""):
> >> o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp
> >
&g
On 2006-11-21, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Oleg Verych writes ("Re: Question about "Depends: bash""):
>> o `arrays' bashizm -> tmp=$@ ; set -- $ARRAY ; use_array $@ ; set -- $tmp
>
> This is another piece of bad advice: this approach is buggy if the
> argu
Ben Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:58:58 +0100
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But if they are concerned about the memory footprint of the shell
> used by default as /bin/sh, that is another matter. They can always
> install dash and symlink /bin/s
On 11/18/06 10:50:30PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Regarding the discusion about POSIX and sh I have a grave problem.
>
> My scripts (or better programs) are using #!/bin/bash because I use
> BASH specific extensions.
>
> You say: "BASH must not be a Depends: since it is Essentia
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding the discusion about POSIX and sh I have a grave problem.
> My scripts (or better programs) are using #!/bin/bash because I use
> BASH specific extensions.
> You say: "BASH must not be a Depends: since it is Essential."
> Oops my $USERS comp
Hello,
Regarding the discusion about POSIX and sh I have a grave problem.
My scripts (or better programs) are using #!/bin/bash because I use
BASH specific extensions.
You say: "BASH must not be a Depends: since it is Essential."
Oops my $USERS complain about it, since they have removed this hu
33 matches
Mail list logo
