> The simplest way, of course, is to state in the release notes that
> zsh, although POSIX-compliant (is it really?) should not be used as
Is bash really POSIX-compliant?
Is ash?
Is pdksh?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me be perfectly clear:
>
> KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF XFREE86.
Chill. Nobody will touch your preciousss.
Anyway, what prevents the documentation of existing practise in
policy? I.e. inserting an additional dependency on "command -v",
perhaps to be
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
> No one is advocating such a position. It is a hallucination of your
> fevered mind.
My mistake. I could have sworn that several people suggested turning a
blind eye.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[You guys sure do appear to love private CCs...]
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 10:59:50PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> I have nothing against policy-compliant scripts.
>
> But why blessing a lie in policy is the option preferred by anyone is
> a mystery to me.
No one is advocating such a position. It
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 09:39:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Such as?
> >
> > test -x /usr/sbin/install-docs || echo hi
>
> Personally, the only such paths I ever hard code are /etc, #!/bin/sh,
> and #!/usr/bin/perl, and I've been thinking about using the env trick
> for
Adam Heath wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do not
really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only way
Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bin/which is
Essentia
Previously Clint Adams wrote:
> Is this important in the event that install-docs gets moved, or so that
> someone can put a different install-docs in the PATH?
Both. Making things more fragile is always a Bad Idea.
Wichert.
--
_
Clint Adams wrote:
> > Such as?
>
> test -x /usr/sbin/install-docs || echo hi
Personally, the only such paths I ever hard code are /etc, #!/bin/sh,
and #!/usr/bin/perl, and I've been thinking about using the env trick
for that last. ess hardcoded paths is good for flexability, and avoid
possible
> That's different and more fragile: it relies on a fixed path which
> command -v does not.
Is this important in the event that install-docs gets moved, or so that
someone can put a different install-docs in the PATH?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Previously Clint Adams wrote:
> > Such as?
>
> test -x /usr/sbin/install-docs || echo hi
That's different and more fragile: it relies on a fixed path which
command -v does not.
Wichert.
--
_
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] This spac
> Does Debian explicitly support such a configuration? That's the point.
> I can symlink /bin/sh to /usr/bin/tcsh or /usr/bin/X11/XFree86 if I
> want, but that doesn't mean that the Debian packaging infrastructure
> offers to it for me via a debconf question, update-alternatives, or some
> similar
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Clint Adams wrote:
> > the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do
> > not
> > really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only
> > way
>
> Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bin/which is
> Essentia
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > IMO, anyone who uses zsh for /bin/sh is quite insane. ;-)
>
> Perhaps, but it's been done.
Does Debian explicitly support such a configuration? That's the point.
I can symlink /bin/sh to /usr/bin/tcsh or /usr/bin/X11/XFree86 if I
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:46:07PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Why we can't resolve this in a simple way is beyond me.
+ Gimme an F, gimme an R, gimme an E, E, Z, E. What does it spell?
Michael
--
"Aristotle gave you logic. Apply it."
-- Branden Robinson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
> IMO, anyone who uses zsh for /bin/sh is quite insane. ;-)
Perhaps, but it's been done. And policy in its current state
fraudulently claims that it will work. Why we can't resolve this in a
simple way is beyond me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 07:22:17PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do
> > not
> > really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only
> > way
>
> Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bi
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 11:19:02PM +0200, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> Change the rules for all the Debian distribution because you find that
> 'command -v' is handy, seems quite excessive to me...
You need to stop hitting the hooch and start thinking more about what
Debian is trying to
> the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do not
> really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only
> way
Well, that's not true. As Luca has pointed out, /usr/bin/which is
Essential at the moment. Also, not every shell in Debian support
> Such as?
test -x /usr/sbin/install-docs || echo hi
?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Change the rules for all the Debian distribution because you find that
> 'command -v' is handy, seems quite excessive to me...
>
the problem is there is no better replacement for 'command -v'. And we do not
really need an exception -- every shell we have supports this. So the only way
a pe
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> The same goal can be achived with other commands or shell builtin.
Such as?
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Branden,
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:28:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:42:40PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Below is a list of packages that may use 'command -v' in their #!/bin/sh
> > postinsts. Section 11.4 of Policy states that /bin/sh can be a symlink
> >
Package: debhelper
Version: 4.0.6
Severity: serious
Hi all,
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:28:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:42:40PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Below is a list of packages that may use 'command -v' in their #!/bin/sh
> > postinsts. Section 11.4 of
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 03:42:40PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> Below is a list of packages that may use 'command -v' in their #!/bin/sh
> postinsts. Section 11.4 of Policy states that /bin/sh can be a symlink
> to any POSIX-compatible shell, with an exception for 'echo', and that
> package #!/bin/
32 matches
Mail list logo
