> I've only heard about using "+" end of last year.
AFAIK, the first place the idea of having user+foo for mail sorting
was widely used was the CMU Andrew project; they used + as the
seperator, and were doing this as far back as 1988, I think...
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > > (and nothing more than that) when ca
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 06:59:58PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> > doesn't.
>
> 19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
> $echo {foo,blah}
> foo blah
> $
Yes, I think Adrian got them the wrong way round. pdksh does; AT+T ksh
does
Hi there,
Some upstream packages (eg. e2fsprogs) contain shared libraries which
can be debian-packaged in their own package (eg. libcom_err, now in
packages comerr{2g,g-dev}).
Until now, I let the versions of library packages be the same as the
e2fsprogs deb-package's version. However, this mean
---Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > > > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings
in
> > > > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that
list by
> > > > architecture.
> > >
>
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 05:01:57PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> > > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> > > architecture.
> >
> > Why not just use scoring in Gnus?
>
> We not just creat
Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A quick check shows that ksh also does brace expansion, but (pd)ksh
> doesn't.
Que?
19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $sudo dpkg -iEG pdksh_5.2.13-1.deb
[...]
19:58:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| ~/temp $ksh
$echo {foo,blah}
foo blah
$
--
James
On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 10:40:43AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Is it necessary that we're allowed to change the content of documents in
> > main? I would like to package the standard documents from W3, but they
> > don't allow to change the content. And this makes sense, because this
> > documen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >> * a shared unstripped lib, compiled with -DDEBUG, with the same
> > >>name.soname of the runtime lib, installed in a different dir
> > >> (/usr/lib/debug) which *ISN'T* in /etc/ld.so.conf
> > >
> > > W
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > The current policy does not allow packages to touch /etc/crontab
> > > anymore. This is because we don't allow packages to modify other
> > > packages configuration files.
> >
> > We should also correct the policy to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >> On another note, what about things like cron, which don't *need*
> >> reload -- it tracks its conffiles,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 14.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Martin" == Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 03:16:00PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Some people might want to be able to prefilter their mail into
> >> f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Here's a paste-in of the `sendmail-8.8.8' ruleset 5. The part after
So sendmail defaults to using "+" (and in an IMHO only half-implemented
way - why am I not surprised?). So?
Exim can use anything at all, both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 15.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 10:17:26AM +, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I thought that the convention was to use ``minused'' addresses for this:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > That's certainly the qmail way of doing things, and I seem to re
> > One of the release goals for Debian 2.0 has been to link all shared
> > libraries dynamically against each other. This can be done by using the
> > `-lc' option when linking the library. With that, the library will contain
> > valuable dependency information about which other libraries the libr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 14 Jan 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well, now that the Debian ports generate a lot of postings in
> > debian-devel-changes, I think it is time to split that list by
> > archit
> If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
> startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely
> as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as
> well.
>
>So, if POSIX says that the example above should be
>
>$
On 16 Jan, joost witteveen wrote:
>
> Most security people seem to agree that security-wise it's
> better to have shared binaries.
>
I'm not a security expert, so I can take this for granted.
>> If the libs are compiled with -DDEBUG
>
> They aren't.
Yours maybe. Mine are.
Some sources embeds
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2.01$ echo hello {the
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As long as bash is tagged `Essential: Yes', I don't think we need special
> dependencies for posix-shell.
Yes.
> However, managing /bin/sh through alternatives sounds like a good idea to
> me.
Yes. I already have a bug report to do this. Waiting
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>3.) [check for new packages every ten minutes]
>Check if package upload was complete and the files are correct
>(i.e. check PGP signature, MD5 sums, correct .changes file, etc.)
>If there is an error send ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
> Sometimes one hears people say they need static binaries for security
> reasons
Static libraries are useful when you want to compile something for
people that might not be using a Debian system.
For example, I've recently heard that the Redhat mainta
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Current (unwritten) policy is to require that all other targets of
> debian/rules are also non-interactive.
All other _required_ targets. It's certainly ok for additional
targets to be interactive.
Guy
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One of the release goals for Debian 2.0 has been to link all shared
> libraries dynamically against each other. This can be done by using the
> `-lc' option when linking the library. With that, the library will contain
> valuable dependency informati
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> force-reload if possible do a "reload", otherwise "restart"
Can anybody think of something better than `force-reload' for this
option?
> All these options have to be provided by all scripts. If an option is
> not possible (i.e.,
Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Though this works perfectly with "man", it's completely controversal
It doesn't work with xman. That should be reason enough not to do it.
Guy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> I thought we had agreed on
>
> * If the nmu fixes many bugs, close the bugs, but reopen a new one
> with the diffs
No, there's often times valuable information in the bug report. What
if the non-maintainer release doesn't correctly fix the bug?
If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely
as possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as
well.
So, if POSIX says that the example above should be
$ echo hello {the
> > -dev: Only headers, and the ".so -> .so.minor" symlink
> > -dbg: Eighter static or shared (need to discuss this probably, maybe both)
> > libs with debugging info.
> >
> > This proposal is very different from what we have now, and we really should
> > discus this before this become
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 1998 at 12:08:47AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Yes, I can only agree. But is bash actually completely POSIX-compliant
> > (and nothing more than that) when called as /bin/sh ?
>
> It would appear not:
>
> sh-2.01$ echo hello {the
31 matches
Mail list logo
