Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Andreas Barth
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061106 22:00]: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:01:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> +the -a and -o test > > >> operators > > >> +

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Andreas Barth
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061106 23:40]: > My impression of the previous Policy discussion was that there was not a > consensus around this change, so I'm trying to reach a consensus around a > simpler incremental change that deals with one problem (while still > leaving others opened).

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Nov 07, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree -a/-o should be replaced, but I don't think we really consider No, they should NOT be replaced. There is no sensible reason to not use them. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Bug#128734: The program will begin

2006-11-07 Thread University Service Center
Earlier this year we wrote to you about our Knowledge Based Degree Program (KBDP). We thought we would follow up and see if there is any reason why you have not called our registrars office. Most people don't realize that these degrees are completely valid, and only our staff and yourself know

Bug#120418: As part of our effort to offer

2006-11-07 Thread Jessica Arias
Earlier this year we wrote to you about our Knowledge Based Degree Program (KBDP). We thought we would follow up and see if there is any reason why you have not called our registrars office. Most people don't realize that these degrees are completely valid, and only our staff and yourself know

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Monday 06 November 2006 18:07, Russ Allbery wrote: > + required under POSIX, hence this explicit addition. Also, > + rumour has it that this shall be mandated under the LSB > + anyway. I dont think the debian policy should spread rumours about the LSB.

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Otavio Salvador
Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > On Monday 06 November 2006 18:07, Russ Allbery wrote: >> +required under POSIX, hence this explicit addition. Also, >> +rumour has it that this shall be mandated under the LSB >> +anyway. > > I dont think the

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy

2006-11-07 Thread Russ Allbery
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Monday 06 November 2006 18:07, Russ Allbery wrote: >>> + required under POSIX, hence this explicit addition. Also, >>> + rumour has it that this shall be mandated under the LSB >>> +