Hi,
I agree with the statement that any script that uses bashisms
should in fact start with the string #! /bin/bash.
Do we know of any other shell that is POSIX compliant? Bash,
invoked as /bin/sh, has a stated goal of being a POSIX compliant
shell, and I think is quite good at
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, we are saying "If you want to port a single Debian package to some
> system, you have to Debianize the system first". This is nonsense.
I know this is a small sample, but every system here in the CS dept:
SUNs, SGIs, AIX machines, and HP mach
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Rob Browning wrote:
>> Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So if we have to
>> admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying "Debian
>> packages will always be for
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact
> > > saying "Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux
> > > distributions".
> >
> > No, we are saying that you need bash on any Debian system.
>
> No, we are saying "If
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell
> > with multiple possibilities?
>
> Having a virtual package tagged as essential.
Say what? How do you tag a virtual package as essential?
> > You, surely, *must* have at le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Rob Browning wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying
> > "Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux distributions".
>
> No, we are saying that you need bash on any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
James Troup:
> How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
> multiple possibilities?
Having a virtual package tagged as essential.
> You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as
> essential, otherwise people can
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So if we have to admit bashisms in debian/rules, we are in fact saying
> "Debian packages will always be for Debian/Linux distributions".
No, we are saying that you need bash on any Debian system. Which
systems will bash not build on?
And anoth
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ stuff snipped to get down to the core issue ]
What I want to see answered is this:
How does one satisfy the need for an essential POSIX bourne shell with
multiple possibilities?
You, surely, *must* have at least one POSIX bourne shell marked as
The default stty erase character is hardcoded in the kernel which probably
is wise to simply accept. We dont need a new term etc. Just make all apps
query the current stty settings so that they work.
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Ricardas Cepas wrote:
>
> Proposal:
>
> 1) Somewhere in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do.
> >
> > Well, will they be "legitimate" as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be
> > refused by saying "I don't think
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The point is, bash is already essential, that is Debian policy.
> > The onus is on *you* to demonstrate why that should be changed.
>
> "Because it is that way now" is NOT necessarily a valid argument for
> keeping things the same way.
I never said it
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest you file bugs on those which needlessly do.
>
> Well, will they be "legitimate" as `wishlist' bugs? Or they will be
> refused by saying "I don't think it is important, since bash is
> essential" and closed immediately?
Herbert has be
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
> > should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
>
> Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is already essential,
> that is Debian po
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
> should be essential when it doesn't have to be.
Cheap shot, not well made. The point is, bash is already essential,
that is Debian policy. The onus is on *you* to demonstrate why tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In fact, I am not worried by the fact that bash is essential or not.
> > I am worried by the fact that so many packages depend on it.
>
> I suggest you file bugs on tho
Proposal:
1) Somewhere in the base, say ncurses-base postinst
script user should be prompted for key_backspace and key_dc
(delete) values with no default answer. Then common
terminal entries should be created, say linux-local, xterm-local,
etc with these values.
2) Shells,
Quoting Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Some terminals have a `<--' key that cannot be made to produce
>anything except ^H. On these terminals Emacs help will be
>unavailable
Not unavailable, just not on ^H. It would still be mapped to F1, or
M-xhelp in the worst case. I know some e
I am sure that emacs can program the keyboard to its liking. There is no need to
impose a standard on the rest of the world just because of emacs.
But I am not sure that Ian meant to proscribe Backspace -> DEL. Seems to me
that he
wants an app to respect the "stty erase" setting. I think that is
On 13 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
[lots snipped]
> What on earth for? That's completely redundant if bash is essential.
Nice post, but very little in the way of rational arguments why bash
should be essential when it doesn't have to be. It's not like there is
significatly more power there than
Santiago Vila Doncel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
> > > essential.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh in
> favour of #!/bin/bash...
That seems to me a singularly unconvincing argument for ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
> in favour of #!/bin/bash...
Sorry, "against #!/bin/bash", I meant, of course
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNGsEZiqK7IlOjMLFAQFp9wP5AWq4qDFY+RAb8cKDCmF9U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Santiago> I want to change the policy. I think bash should not be
> Santiago> essential.
> Manoj> Why?
Because this seems to be the only way of encouraging #!/bin/sh
in favour of #!/bin/bash...
> Manoj> Do we have any alternatives?
Currently, maybe not.
In
Hi,
>>"Ricardas" == Ricardas Cepas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ricardas> Regarding this Emacs bug usually it is possible to use F1
Ricardas> for help.
And most Emacs afficiandos say WWW (any such default may
give one a strong desire to explore freebsd, for example ;-)
manoj
95% of terminals in terminfo database use
Backspace (^H) for Backspace (including xterm, BSD,
etc). How Debian is going to live with other OS'es in the
world if it will put this incompatibility in it's policy ?
Regarding this Emacs bug usually it is possible to use F1
for
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Some time ago I posted the message below to debian-devel. It received
> widespread support and no significant opposition. I think it
> should be made policy.
Fully seconded. I think the current keyboard config is just a
mess. And I think we sh
This proposal sounds fine to me. I certianly agree with the goal.
My only reservation is, can we actually make this work for all programs?
What about motif programs? (I'm thinking specifically of netscape, which we
don't have source for). Ian, I wonder if you've tried to set up your system
the way
27 matches
Mail list logo
