> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:33:50PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>> minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society.
>
>No, minicom is not useful. I never managed to remember any of their
>stupid keybindings.
>Of course screen is bloated in other ways, but what do you have against
>picocom?
Not
> minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society.
No, minicom is not useful. I never managed to remember any of their
stupid keybindings.
Of course screen is bloated in other ways, but what do you have against picocom?
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 02:20:22PM +0100, hiro wrote:
>remove minicom
>
minicom & ckermit are still very useful in today's society. Although not as
useful for Internet connectivity, they're still used for debugging the kernel
and other low-level activities. The most recent from what I hear i
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 07:52:17AM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>> If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
>> distro) to fix it.
>
>I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
>lsx-dm
On 28 November 2011 17:08, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
> contain directories containing the actual commands.
Plan 9 does this to some extent. It's always seemed obvi
That's not a machine, it's a moka.
2011/11/28 Kurt H Maier :
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
> wrote:
>> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
>> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
>> contain directories containing th
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> Scripts have to be able to depend on command names; command line
> interfaces are interfaces too. In theory, bin directories should
> contain directories containing the actual commands. Yes, I would
> suggest namespaces if compatibility
On 11/28/11, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
>> to reuse the same name.
>
> "Clearly" "there" "is" "no" "general" "case". "Things" "like" "this"
> "should" "be" "dealt" "with" "on" "a" "case-by-case" "basis".
>
Scripts have to be able to depend on command
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> I was talking in general.
> The case where an "idiot" "stole" a 3-letter string is a very specific case
> where it can be justified
> to reuse the same name.
"Clearly" "there" "is" "no" "general" "case". "Things" "like" "this"
"should"
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 07:52:17 -0500
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> wrote:
> > If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers
> > (of each distro) to fix it.
>
> I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
> lsx-dm
remove minicom
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
> distro) to fix it.
I disagree. lsx-lrzsz is clearly less useful or important than
lsx-dmenu. Just because some idiot camped out on a three-letter
string does
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:51:03 -0500
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Just call it 'stest'. If there's a collision, that's what packagers
> are for.
If you can avoid conflicts, that's better than expecting packagers (of each
distro) to fix it.
On 2011-11-27 15:32, Roger wrote:
> locate "stest" |grep ^stest$
08:53:31 Err 130 /Volumes/Users/phaller
> locate ls | grep ^ls$
08:53:34 Err 1 /Volumes/Users/phaller
> locate ls | grep ^/bin/ls$
/bin/ls
08:53:43 /Volumes/Users/phaller>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:44:45PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>On 27 November 2011 23:13, Roger wrote:
>> Very well. I'm considering renaming lsx to dmenu_lsx and it looks like lsx's
>> only occurance is within /usr/bin/dmenu_run? Or is the name change going to
>> break anything else?
>
>
Just call it 'stest'. If there's a collision, that's what packagers are for.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On 27 November 2011 23:13, Roger wrote:
> Very well. I'm considering renaming lsx to dmenu_lsx and it looks like lsx's
> only occurance is within /usr/bin/dmenu_run? Or is the name change going to
> break anything else?
Correct, it only appears in dmenu_run.
On a related note, I'm considering
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 02:44:23PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>Hey,
>
>On 27 November 2011 03:45, Roger wrote:
>> Over the past few weeks, I've noticed dmenu's lsx binary naming conflicts
>> with
>> lrzsz (http://www.ohse.de/uwe/software/lrzsz.html).
>
>This has come up once before [1]. I
Hey,
On 27 November 2011 03:45, Roger wrote:
> Over the past few weeks, I've noticed dmenu's lsx binary naming conflicts with
> lrzsz (http://www.ohse.de/uwe/software/lrzsz.html).
This has come up once before [1]. I don't consider it our problem,
since a distro can just rename the utility (prefi
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:02:06PM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>Incidentally, minicom works absolutely fine without lrzsz.
minicom has a runtime depend here (on Gentoo) for lrzsz
--
Roger
http://rogerx.freeshell.org/
Incidentally, minicom works absolutely fine without lrzsz.
# Kurt H Maier
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Roger wrote:
> Over the past few weeks, I've noticed dmenu's lsx binary naming conflicts with
> lrzsz (http://www.ohse.de/uwe/software/lrzsz.html).
>
> The lrzsz package is a dependency of minicom & ckermit, and has been around
> for
> awhile. Therefore, has som
Over the past few weeks, I've noticed dmenu's lsx binary naming conflicts with
lrzsz (http://www.ohse.de/uwe/software/lrzsz.html).
The lrzsz package is a dependency of minicom & ckermit, and has been around for
awhile. Therefore, has something yet been suggested for renaming the lsx
binary?
(
23 matches
Mail list logo
