Hi, junichi. Excuse me, I was too harsh and rude on you
in my last mail.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Wed, 23 Jan 2002 04:05:11 +0900",
with "Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh",
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, I've probably misse
Sorry for a confusing example. I tried
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild
and it didn't work. I did some RTFM and found in debuild(1):
> ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES
>As environment variables can affect the building of a
>package, often unintentionally, debuild san
Please read again my previous mail before doing reply again.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:39:02 +0900",
with "Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh",
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cu
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> # Note: you can't do it by
> # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild
> # because it won't work. Shell variables are not
> # succeeded to sub-process.
>
> But it seems to me that you repeated to say the same thing
> in his co
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> # to compile with debugging information:
> # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> #
> # Note: you can't do it by
> # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild
> # because it won't work. Shell variables are not
> #
quot;...", unset,
> and then run debuild.
>
> But that is talking about shell.
??? I can't understand why you insist on here, dancer.
Oohara already explained his intent:
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:44:42 +0900 (JST),
on Re: Bug#8943
Please read again my previous mail before doing reply again.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on "Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:39:02 +0900",
with "Re: Bug#89433: I want to adopt osh",
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cu
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> # Note: you can't do it by
> # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild
> # because it won't work. Shell variables are not
> # succeeded to sub-process.
>
> But it seems to me that you repeated to say the same thing
> in his c
Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> # to compile with debugging information:
> # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> #
> # Note: you can't do it by
> # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild
> # because it won't work. Shell variables are not
> #
quot;...", unset,
> and then run debuild.
>
> But that is talking about shell.
??? I can't understand why you insist on here, dancer.
Oohara already explained his intent:
In <20020118.114442.74747472.oohara@grain>,
on Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:44:42 +0900 (JST),
on
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
> you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
> licensed under the GPL. The debian package is co
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I was saying that
> "DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild"
> is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see you
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
>
> That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
> and also this is not a place to document how to
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:21:23PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
>
> That won't work, because it is syntactically incorrect,
> and also this is not a place to document how t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 02:36:31AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compatible with the GPL. This means that
> you can't redistribute the binary of osh if it is complied with libraries
> licensed under the GPL. The debian package is c
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 10:45:41AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I was saying that
> "DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild"
> is syntactically incorrect, and it looks bad to have it in debian/rules.
Guess I should read the whole thread before writing any comments next
time. Now I see yo
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > debian/rules says:
> > > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > > | # (this won't work:
> > > | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> > > Note the word "won't
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:21:23 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > | # (this won't work:
> > | # DEB
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > > debian/rules says:
> > > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > > | # (this won't work:
> > > | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> > > Note the word "won'
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 23:21:23 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > debian/rules says:
> > | # to compile with debugging information:
> > | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> > | # (this won't work:
> > | # DE
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
> | # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
> | #endif
As long as there are no assumptions in the code that library functions
won't return longer data, that's ok.
> > p Is writing something like:
> > Note that this license is not
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> debian/rules says:
> | # to compile with debugging information:
> | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> | # (this won't work:
> | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> Note the word "won't".
That won't work, bec
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
If you don't want to fix them, I surely won't upload them to Debian.
I think you are misunderstanding most of my comments.
> > Some things I noticed:
> >
> > o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPA
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
> | # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
> | #endif
As long as there are no assumptions in the code that library functions
won't return longer data, that's ok.
> > p Is writing something like:
> > Note that this license is no
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> debian/rules says:
> | # to compile with debugging information:
> | # $ debuild -e DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip"
> | # (this won't work:
> | # DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="debug,nostrip" && debuild)
> Note the word "won't".
That won't work, be
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
If you don't want to fix them, I surely won't upload them to Debian.
I think you are misunderstanding most of my comments.
> > Some things I noticed:
> >
> > o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
> struct.h says:
> | #ifndef MAXP
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some things I noticed:
>
> o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compati
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:36:31 +0900,
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some things I noticed:
>
> o MAXPATHLEN is not available on some systems.
struct.h says:
| #ifndef MAXPATHLEN
| # define MAXPATHLEN 1024
| #endif
> p Is writing something like:
> Note that this license is not compat
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> My .deb of osh is available at:
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
> when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
> use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
> It is not for a
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> My .deb of osh is available at:
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7-9.diff.gz
> http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficia
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Note that osh is a setuid root shell and it does *NOT* drop root privilege
> when it executes a command. Be extremely careful when you configure or
> use it. (osh is installed in /usr/sbin/osh and its permission is 4754.
> It is not for
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq.
I want to adopt osh (#89433), but I am not a Debian developer,
so I can't change the title of the wnpp bug until I find a sponsor.
If you are interested, please sponsor me.
My .deb of osh is available at:
http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohara/debian-unofficial/osh_1.7.orig.tar.gz
http://www.interq
34 matches
Mail list logo
