Hi there,
On 30 August 2017 at 01:39, fao_ wrote:
> Rather, I am asking your opinions on the general concept and
> how it has been implemented. Specifically, the idea of installing
> under a 'package' directory, and symlinking from there to the
> proper install location. But anything about the ge
Basically what the title asks: what is suckless' general opinion
of GNU Stow. To clarify: I am not asking about the language or
tools that make up GNU stow (It is obviously not Suckless).
Rather, I am asking your opinions on the general concept and
how it has been implemented. Specifically, the i
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:32AM +, sylvain.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> C syntax is already *WAY* too rich. Many of the linux kernel coding
> guidelines are actually a sort of an emphase of this point. […] to be
> polite some things are "not recommended": […] I go a bit farther: no
> enum eit
On 29 August 2017 at 12:10, wrote:
> following conditions: In no way a core functionality of the user level
> application should be implemented in the "interpreted" language; In no way the
> SDK of the user application must force the availability of the "interpreted"
> language to be compiled or
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:31:38PM +0200, Stéphane Aulery wrote:
> As I mentioned in my first post, I will not want to write a piece of lower
> level or intermediate software with a scripting language, but one can still
> write a user software whose only dependency is the interpreter. The
> princip
Quoth Greg Reagle:
> > * Quote "$edit" in case the editor has a space in its name.
>
> I deliberately do not quote $edit so that I can set EDITOR to nano -w.
> Is that non-standard/wacky? Is there a convention for whether the the
> value of EDITOR environment variable should be able to have opt
