On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:15 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
> though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
> such a shell, nor to be particularly useful interactively.
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for an
> Why not ls?
Judging by the lack of wishlist bugs requesting it and my
own feeling of revulsion at the idea, I'd say that it's because
no one wants it.
A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
such a shell, no
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 17:57 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
> > created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
> > of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
>
> Not exactly a minimu
> Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that posh was
> created for the purpose of providing a shell which supports a minimum
> of functionality required by policy against which scripts could be
Not exactly a minimum. For example, posh implements a POSIX pwd
builtin. If it wer
On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 10:55:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> What you are saying, in essence, is that we have not been
> treating autoconf transitions with the care we devote to other
> transitions; and as a result people have started shipping
> intermediate files.
>
> Wh
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think, as Andi said earlier, we have come to a rough
> consensus here. Or close enough, for me. Russ, please go ahead and
> create the new version of the patch for your proposal, as you
> mentioned in your mail with
> Message-ID: <[EMA
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am of two mind with that. On the positive side it removes the promise
> to the users that the system works with _any_ POSIX-compliant /bin/sh, which
> is something we never actively tested.
>
> On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh
7708671 3703761 707378 1 7217040 5524468
6 0 0 206 66 8 6 8
6 2 3 00 4 3 6 8 3 1
0 3 4 664174 7 0 3 6 8525467
7 5 7 4 6
6883777 6165717 681337 1 4084464 5873344
7 6 4 135 28 1 1 7
2 8 3 14 4 1 3 0 2 5
4 8 4 002654 5 6 3 5 4371585
7 3 6 2 1
7443513 3128235 823525 0 7516811 8612166
3 0 7 716 17 0 4 5
5 8 7 11 8 0 4 8 5 4
6 7 7 076145 8 8 7 1 2340862
3 7 8 4 1
1055354 4420601 34 8 0833071 6187147
6 1 5 137 25 2 6 3
3 7 5 87 1 5 4 8 3 6
8 8 7 223401 0 6 7 3 2205725
3 0 2 7 4
6636746 5207587 152638 8 7281688 7748265
8 3 5 572 23 6 0 4
4 1 0 22 6 7 2 8 7 2
8 7 6 430121 3 8 7 1 1243656
1 4 5 2 4
2342335 3773147 773528 5 8763085 2583310
4 3 1 065 62 1 5 8
8 6 1 82 2 8 3 0 1 1
0 3 8 142466 8 1 6 7 0346204
2 7 7 4 2
4140584 4530271 488177 6 7456834 8585363
5 0 3 581 45 4 8 7
4 5 2 21 5 5 3 8 3 6
6 3 6 063670 1 7 3 4 7324075
5 3 0 4 2
3143161 4106351 036706 2 1462028 2075178
8 6 7 186 25 6 8 6
7 3 5 62 6 3 1 4 2 6
6 0 6 536847 5 4 3 1 5500745
6 2 2 6 6
1253832 2478711 603054 0 0355562 0531675
6 3 7 503 07 3 6 3
3 4 7 83 3 1 4 2 5 7
4 7 6 500285 7 7 5 6 0514841
2 3 0 5 3
8223634 0720373 230603 8 6665271 0721205
4 3 7 073 85 5 6 8
0 8 4 83 3 8 3 4 7 1
6 1 2 610688 6 3 3 3 5865736
6 2 6 7 3
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 07:35:14PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
> > ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
>
> Ok, so this means so
6721801 2765046 811132 8 6421064 7138682
8 8 6 377 51 4 5 3
1 3 4 38 4 4 6 5 7 2
8 7 4 018472 3 6 8 8 8636257
7 6 3 7 5
5852032 2612753 433045 4 2436837 1325388
8 7 6 223 58 2 3 3
1 5 0 02 3 7 7 7 7 4
8 6 4 414488 7 5 5 6 6865203
1 7 7 0 7
2144202 4838060 753748 6 4822371 1465233
8 0 1 320 25 6 7 4
2 8 7 64 7 3 4 8 7 6
3 6 8 078247 5 0 3 8 0031481
6 2 1 7 8
2466613 5306250 410488 7 5616382 2184760
0 3 3 857 24 4 0 6
0 3 0 24 2 2 4 3 7 7
5 3 2 053628 1 5 4 1 7864606
5 0 0 5 0
22 matches
Mail list logo
