On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:46:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 04:06:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Let me be perfectly clear:
> >
> > KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF XFREE86.
>
> You do realize this is now going to be quoted out of context and used in all
> sorts of ad ho
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 11:58:49PM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> I'm only sorry that the election period is over: you were quite friendly.
I'm still friendly to people who aren't doing things deserving of an
unfriendly response.
Offering to hijack 600 packages so their maintainer
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 04:06:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> So far, no one has proposed a standards-compliant way of solving the
> problem that retains command -v's robustness.
If you want to be right in any case, you're wellcome.
I've no problem with this.
> Let me be perfectly clear:
>
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 04:06:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Let me be perfectly clear:
>
> KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF XFREE86.
You do realize this is now going to be quoted out of context and used in all
sorts of ad hominem attacks? >:)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
T
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 09:31:36AM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> Hi Branden,
> do you mind if i start working on your packages to replace any occurrence of
> the 'command -v' with any other alternative good solution?
Yes, I mind a great deal. I am not soliciting patches to correc
Bryan> Simple suggestion: all Debian install scripts require
Bryan> /bin/bash. They never refer to /bin/sh. Especially as in, "#!
Bryan> /bin/sh"
Bryan> Or if you don't like bash, ash. If not ash,
Bryan> csh. busybox. perl. Something. Just specify it and be done with
Bryan> it. And demand that sh
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 06:33:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Over six hundred packages already use it, it prevents the hard-coding of
> paths into maintainer scripts and thus renders them more robust against
> harmless changes in other packages (e.g., moving traceroute from
> /usr/sbin to /u
> Ah. So we effectively require that ``/bin/sh should be a POSIX (SUSv3)
> shell supporting the "UP" extension, and a BSD echo.'' Along with other,
> as yet unknown, caveats. Strange that Linux "echo" is still considered
> to contravene POSIX.
So we should either make this explicit, and file bugs
8 matches
Mail list logo
