-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
from the bash manpage:
/dev/tcp/host/port
If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port
is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts
to open
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:30:09PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> For this feature there are several scripts and tools around which use
> this feature. Moreover if you want to make a net boot image where you
> need to contact a other host easy there is no way to do this with debian
> Linux so I have
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> > requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> > "need" bash to make them work. someone may then prov
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:30:09PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> from the bash manpage:
> /dev/tcp/host/port
> If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port
> is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts
>
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit requirement
> > for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages "need" bash to make
> > them work. someone may then provide a patch to "make ba
Hi Martin,
Martin Kittel wrote:
> the upload of the latest maxdb-7.5.00 package that fixes a
> release-critical bug for etch (#398413).
I will sponsor your upload.
--
·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
: :' :-- Emma
On 2006-11-23, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> from the bash manpage:
> /dev/tcp/host/port
> If host is a valid hostname or Internet address, and port
> is an integer port number or service name, bash attempts
> to op
Hi Klaus,
> >from the bash manpage:
> /dev/tcp/host/port
> /dev/udp/host/port
This has been discussed several times [1][2], and the outcome was every time
that this should not be a feature of the shell, but of more specialized
tools like nc. Use those or recompile your
Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Donnerstag 23 November 2006 07:43 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
>> I wrote a patch for the linux-2.6 source top enable 64bit kernels for
>> i386 as we had in sarge. I've tested the patch on amd64 and i386 so I
>> know native builds will work.
>
> Yo
* Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061123 06:56]:
>
> But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
> and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
> announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh,
> pdksh ..., if it uses those shells
Marvin Renich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061123 06:56]:
> >
> > But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
> > and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
> > announce dependance on a particular shell -- wher
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I suggest removin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/23/06 07:09, Jan C. Nordholz wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
>> >from the bash manpage:
>> /dev/tcp/host/port
>> /dev/udp/host/port
>
> This has been discussed several times [1][2], and the outcome was every time
> that this sh
Am Donnerstag 23 November 2006 16:42 schrieb Ron Johnson:
> What's the real problem with /dev/{tcp|udp}?
# ls /dev/udp /dev/tcp
ls: /dev/udp: No such file or directory
ls: /dev/tcp: No such file or directory
The chosen method of integration is practical non-sense.
What happens if /dev/tcp is pres
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:42:50 -0600
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/23/06 07:09, Jan C. Nordholz wrote:
> > Hi Klaus,
> >
> >> >from the bash manpage:
> >> /dev/tcp/host/port
> >> /dev/udp/host/port
> >
Dear Debian-Devel :
I have a trouble to need your help.Thank you very much!
I am getting a error during making menuconfig in cygwin. I want to build a
cross compile environment with ARM.But when I wrote a command:"$make ARCH=arm
CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux- menuconfig".A error was printed ,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: happs
Version : 0.8.4
Upstream Author : Alex Jacobson
* URL : http://happs.org/
* License : BSD with advertising clause
Programming Lang: Haskell
Description : Hask
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: gaia
Version : 0.1.0
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL or Web page : http://gaia.serezhkin.com/
* License : GPLv2
Description : Google Earth client
Gaia is both a free library and free client to Google Earth fo
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
> are written with only "sh" i
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> > PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> > disk consumption, but the reduced memor
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:16:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> > PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> > disk consumption, b
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
> is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
Comparing bash from woody and sid, respectively:
-rwxr-xr-x root/root511400 2002-04-08 21:07
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
> > is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
>
> Comparing bash fro
On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
are written with only
Hi Amaya,
Amaya debian.org> writes:
>
> I will sponsor your upload.
>
Thanks a lot for your help. I really appreciate it.
Best wishes,
Martin.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
>
> RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB. No woody to compare with.
dash in woody was still called ash.
Cheers,
--
B
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
> >
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
> >
> > RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[snip]
>
> There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> to work with some generic shell. The former is going to be *much*
> easier.
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
> Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
> consumption a problem when compared to o
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
> no viable alternative implementation of
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> > to wor
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> > policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> > sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > scripts.
>
> Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
>
> > Some prefer bash and see no
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> > requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> > "need" bash to
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ, I'm CC'ing - please tell if you'd rather read the list.
I read the list (both of them); no need to cc.
> I agree. Your suggestion solves this for all parties. The policy stays
> intact, but the underlying dependencies need an improvement. The proble
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:56:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> > in their shell scripts...
>
> Why? Who cares?
Well, be honest. Have you ever used any
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> to work with some generic shel
* David Weinehall:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > ...and where is SuSv3 in Debian (which package?).
>> [...]
>> Nonfree. http://packages.debian.org/susv3
>
> Uhm, no?
>
> susv3:
> Installed: 6.1
>
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > > /bin/bash if they n
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> > in their shell scripts...
>
> Why? Who cares?
>
> This is some huge amount of work for some very little be
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
> using the shell for interactive things is probably not a big deal,
> personally I'd never use dash, posh,
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:48:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Weinehall:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:13:22PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> > ...and where is SuSv3 in Debian (which package?).
> >> [...]
> >> Nonfree.
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > scripts.
>
> Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
>
> > Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others co
On Thu November 23 2006 13:56, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "bash" is a better shell for most users, since it has some nice
> > features absent from "dash", and is a required part of the system.
>
> This refers to inteactive use. dash suits well for scri
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Jan C. Nordholz wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
> > >from the bash manpage:
> > /dev/tcp/host/port
> > /dev/udp/host/port
>
> This has been discussed several times [1][2], and the outcome was every time
> that this should not be a feature
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 22:54:59 +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Then the manpage should be ammended and those things removed. It does not
> make sense to disable things and ship a manpage that implies that they do
> work.
>
Did you look at the bash manpage?
NOTE: Bash, as
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 07:22:35AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> But Hendrik Sattler is perfectly right and this knowledge has to be stored
> at prominant places like:
>
>a) installation manual
>b) apt-key.8
>c) perhaps somewhere else
It is already at the "Securing Debian Manual", see
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: gecodej
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : Mikael Lagerkvist, Guido Tack
* URL : http://www.gecode.org/gecodej/index.html
* License : MIT/X
Programming Lang: C++, Java
De
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > > scripts.
> >
> > Exactly the *point*. So why i
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck. Basically,
> you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk, where it's not
> explicitly essential and can be handled by something akin t
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Most hardware that was nice and shiny back in 2002 wasn't exactly
> underpowered, seeing as the Pentium 4 and Athlon Palomino was what was
> used back then. So, I kind of doubt that the statement was concerning
> Woody. Try Potato
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
>> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
>> "need" bash to make the
On 23 Nov 2006 01:15:28 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I sugge
Hi!
> I have a trouble to need your help.Thank you very much!
> I am getting a error during making menuconfig in cygwin. I want to build
> a
> cross compile environment with ARM.But when I wrote a command:"$make ARCH=arm
> CROSS_COMPILE=arm-linux- menuconfig".A error was printed ,and th
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
>> Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
>> where it's not explicitly essential and can be handled by something
>> akin
Le Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Jan C. Nordholz a écrit :
> Hi Klaus,
>
> > >from the bash manpage:
> > /dev/tcp/host/port
> > /dev/udp/host/port
>
> This has been discussed several times [1][2], and the outcome was every time
> that this should not be a feat
> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Charles> I found the following additional discussions in my
Charles> crystal ball:
Charles> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2008/09/msg00087.html
Charles> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2010/02/msg00295.html
S
Spammers don't seem to target us for their random alias generation
tools, ormaybe they haven't got to the letter 'o' yet. com
for subsequent posts, but that whole barn door thing comes to mind.
In so doing, values are overlooked often and mistakes are made. Maybe
Microsoft will let
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>>> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
>>> requirement for the shell. It's mor
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:28 +1100, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Second, I may need some advice on the license:
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2001-2003, ETH Zurich and Roman Geus
> > All rights reserved.
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source an
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
> >> Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
> >> where it's not explic
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:02:15PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 22:54:59 +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> > Then the manpage should be ammended and those things removed. It does not
> > make sense to disable things and ship a manpage that implies that they
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 334 (new: 13)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 84 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
64 matches
Mail list logo
